Wildfires set to increase 50 percent ...

Wildfires set to increase 50 percent by 2050

There are 575 comments on the PhysOrg Weblog story from Aug 2, 2009, titled Wildfires set to increase 50 percent by 2050. In it, PhysOrg Weblog reports that:

This graph shows the percentage increase in organic carbon particles at the surface, from the present-day to the 2050s, as calculated by the model of Spracklen et al.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at PhysOrg Weblog.

First Prev
of 29
Next Last

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#575 Sep 20, 2009
mostly numb but good wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...LOL....LOL
that was great
Sounds like we should all just kill ourselves now in a grand AGW cult style mass suicide....
you know
do the 'planet' a favour
:)
Yes, we must sacrifice ourselves. We will do it one by one by using an organically grown hemp rope to hang ourselves as it is earth friendly and recyclable. Our bodies will be burned by the surviving scientists with clean burning biofuel from organically grown corn, up in the tropical Arctic former tundra soil enriched with the bodies of dead polar bears.
Our poor helpless 5 billion year old planet that we created and maintained has now got cancer and it is our fault and we must do ourselves in to please the climate gods of science. Praise be to the science and the scientists and the IPCC bible.
Our planet was delicate and fragile and we let it all go to smithereens.
Please punish us science gods. We ask you to please leave only the science gods alive to repopulate our sick planet with the finest specimens of dwarf, low impact on the planet females. Yes, we can make the sky bluer and the grass greener.

Ug! Pass the coconut.
Raptor in Michigan

United States

#576 Sep 20, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we must sacrifice ourselves. We will do it one by one by using an organically grown hemp rope to hang ourselves as it is earth friendly and recyclable. Our bodies will be burned by the surviving scientists with clean burning biofuel from organically grown corn, up in the tropical Arctic former tundra soil enriched with the bodies of dead polar bears.
Our poor helpless 5 billion year old planet that we created and maintained has now got cancer and it is our fault and we must do ourselves in to please the climate gods of science. Praise be to the science and the scientists and the IPCC bible.
Our planet was delicate and fragile and we let it all go to smithereens.
Please punish us science gods. We ask you to please leave only the science gods alive to repopulate our sick planet with the finest specimens of dwarf, low impact on the planet females. Yes, we can make the sky bluer and the grass greener.
Ug! Pass the coconut.
Ah yes, GRASS! Make it greener. One of the most serious problems we face- GRASS! So much of it. Large axpanses of GRASS around every home and business in the country. GRASS- providing not much more than concrete for the diversity of wildlife on the planet. But earthworms, grubbs and moles do love GRASS. After all, who needs trees, wildflowers and shrubs when we can just have GRASS. GRASS doesn't take up too much of our time either. All GRASS really needs is herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, frequent mowings and excessive water to keep the GRASS green. And GRASS does provide shade for ants! What more could we want for a healthy planet?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#577 Sep 20, 2009
The warmest on record, as long as you bother to keep records, there must be one of those. Or your record's broke, you get that too. Records are problematic, what you record, what you manage. Good thing they bother to measure, else we would be dealing in pure fantasy.

AGW climate change mitigation is pseudo science. It’s based on CO2’s spectral effect, the greenhouse effect. The IR light scatters, refracts, fogs and fools, it doesn’t necessarily warm. Manmade CO2 is trivial.

“Killing range: 1,350m”

Since: Oct 08

your backyard

#578 Sep 21, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we must sacrifice ourselves. We will do it one by one by using an organically grown hemp rope to hang ourselves as it is earth friendly and recyclable. Our bodies will be burned by the surviving scientists with clean burning biofuel from organically grown corn, up in the tropical Arctic former tundra soil enriched with the bodies of dead polar bears.
Our poor helpless 5 billion year old planet that we created and maintained has now got cancer and it is our fault and we must do ourselves in to please the climate gods of science. Praise be to the science and the scientists and the IPCC bible.
Our planet was delicate and fragile and we let it all go to smithereens.
Please punish us science gods. We ask you to please leave only the science gods alive to repopulate our sick planet with the finest specimens of dwarf, low impact on the planet females. Yes, we can make the sky bluer and the grass greener.
Ug! Pass the coconut.
LOL

but can we find any non GM Hemp to make the neck'n ropes out of....gee....

more sleepless nights ahead

at least the worlds leaders have the problem in hand

why should our world leaders pow wow in NYC this week to chin wag about ending wars or feeding the hungry when they can talk about the weather....

btw to all you AGW freaks WAR is more harmful to both the planet and people on it than any power plant....no amount of wind farms will save you or your blue skys from the possible toxic death that a good ole nuke and chemical war will bring...

so while all you 'lets go nuke power' idiots say it will save the planet let me float a couple of words for you to think about.

chernobyl

depleated urainum

terrorists

Irainum nuke power programme

Gee, makes good old coal look pritty safe; DOESN'T IT.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#579 Sep 22, 2009
mostly numb but good wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
but can we find any non GM Hemp to make the neck'n ropes out of....gee....
more sleepless nights ahead
at least the worlds leaders have the problem in hand
why should our world leaders pow wow in NYC this week to chin wag about ending wars or feeding the hungry when they can talk about the weather....
btw to all you AGW freaks WAR is more harmful to both the planet and people on it than any power plant....no amount of wind farms will save you or your blue skys from the possible toxic death that a good ole nuke and chemical war will bring...
so while all you 'lets go nuke power' idiots say it will save the planet let me float a couple of words for you to think about.
chernobyl
depleated urainum
terrorists
Irainum nuke power programme
Gee, makes good old coal look pritty safe; DOESN'T IT.
You left out bioweapons. Along with some chemical warfare agents they make nuclear weapons look downright nice.
Warming Sceptic

Salisbury, Australia

#580 Sep 23, 2009
In australia there are more deadly bush fires because its illegal to clear wood in forest areas and the bush is more dense than its ever been and when it burns the fires are more intense

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#581 Sep 23, 2009
Warming Sceptic wrote:
In australia there are more deadly bush fires because its illegal to clear wood in forest areas and the bush is more dense than its ever been and when it burns the fires are more intense
California has had that problem for 40 years.

Since: Aug 08

Bridgeville, PA

#582 Sep 26, 2009
litesong wrote:
When NOAA had its funding coming from administrations (GHWB, Clinton, GWB) that were energy & business oriented, NOAA came out with science that was against energy & business interests.
==========
tina anne wrote:
NOAA is more likely to follow the funding than anything else.
==========
litesong wrote:
NOAA come out with AGW theory that opposes business & energy companies during administrations that appealed to business & energy companies.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#583 Sep 27, 2009
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
When NOAA had its funding coming from administrations (GHWB, Clinton, GWB) that were energy & business oriented, NOAA came out with science that was against energy & business interests.
==========
tina anne wrote:
NOAA is more likely to follow the funding than anything else.
==========
litesong wrote:
NOAA come out with AGW theory that opposes business & energy companies during administrations that appealed to business & energy companies.
Congress not the White House controls the purse strings. The very same Congress that thought Ethanol was a good idea and made that law.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#584 Sep 28, 2009
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
When NOAA had its funding coming from administrations (GHWB, Clinton, GWB) that were energy & business oriented, NOAA came out with science that was against energy & business interests.
==========
litesong wrote:
NOAA come out with AGW theory that opposes business & energy companies during administrations that appealed to business & energy companies.
Why is theory against business? What kind of dopes are those? Why not compete on even footing, without government intervention.

The evidence for AGW climate change mitigation is transparent, invisible, spectral and unmeasured. The experimental tests are in; a century without refinement is bad science, not a dynamic new idea. Carbon taxes are for saps.

Since: Aug 08

Bridgeville, PA

#585 Sep 28, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
The evidence for AGW climate change mitigation is transparent......
I support measures of strong conservation, efficiency & frugality in which all participants keep money in their pockets.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#586 Sep 29, 2009
I reject climate taxes, carbon taxes and green subsidies. The market can pick the winners and losers better than politicians.
Earthling

Spain

#587 Sep 29, 2009
Fat Al supports measures of strong conservation, efficiency & frugality, in which all participants put money in his pocket.
litesong

Everett, WA

#588 Jul 18, 2012
Blast from the Past:

Northie...... How does this thread's prediction compare to the present fires & seemingly sure fired future burnings?
Northie

Spokane, WA

#589 Jul 19, 2012
litesong wrote:
Blast from the Past:
Northie...... How does this thread's prediction compare to the present fires & seemingly sure fired future burnings?
Too early to say for 2012. The July figures haven't been compiled, and June isn't much of a fire month as many higher Western US forests are still in snow, but it's obviously a bad fire year, and way too early.

The overall decadal trend seems to be towards more and larger fires, as predicted.

http://wildland-fires.sciencedaily.com/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The theory of everything Aug 22 BillT 1
Gravity & Acceleration (Dec '13) Aug 15 nakayama 7
News Making a Solar Energy Conversion Breakthrough W... Aug 8 Solarman 1
Ideal Physics App Aug 5 Anonymous 1
News Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant After All, P... (May '13) Aug 3 nakayama 89
News Are Science And Truth At Odds? (Sep '15) Aug 1 B Afraid Very Ver... 5
MM Experiment & Einstein (Dec '13) Jul '16 nakayama 7
More from around the web