Wildfires Spew Tons Of Global Warming Gas

SoCal's Fires Added As Much CO2 To Air In One Week As State's Cars And Power Plants

(AP)  In one week, Southern California's wildfires spewed the same amount of carbon dioxide - the primary global warming gas - as the state's power plants and vehicles did, scientists figure.

A new study by two Colorado researchers shows that U.S. wildfires pump a significant amount of the greenhouse gas into the air each year, more than the state of Pennsylvania does. It raises questions about how useful it is to plant trees to offset rising carbon dioxide emissions and soothe environmental consciences.

Because the California wildfires occurred just as the study was about to be published, the researchers calculated how much carbon dioxide was likely to come from the devastating blazes Oct. 19-26. It's a lot: 8.7 million tons.

That's more than the state of Vermont produces in a year. And it's also more than the 6 million tons estimated by California's air control agency, which used a different calculation method.

On average, wildfires in the United States each year pump 322 million tons of carbon dioxide. That's about 5 percent of what the country emits by burning fossil fuels, such as gasoline and coal, according to the new research published online Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Carbon Balance and Management.

"It is quite a big chunk," said study co-author Jason Neff of the University of Colorado at Boulder. But he adds: "It's nothing compared to our fossil fuels burning."

Mostly when scientists look at carbon dioxide emissions, they spend their time on the stuff that man adds to power industrial life. But Neff and Christine Wiedinmyer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., looked at forests, which act as a sponge and absorb some of the carbon dioxide, but which also burn and produce it.

"The problem is that what goes in, comes out," Neff said.

In recent years, some people who want to compensate for their personal contributions to global warming (from driving gas-guzzling cars or heating huge houses) have paid groups to plant trees to soak up that extra carbon in the air. It's called a carbon offset.

Over several decades or centuries, replanted trees will capture some of the gas, but the first few decades it will be at a reduced rate, Wiedinmyer said.

"There's a real danger here that in the offsetting program you feel you've done your bit," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who wasn't part of the study. "You've got to be a little bit more creative than to think that you're going to solve global warming by planting trees."

In previous studies, scientists have shown that a general increase in American wildfires - but no one event - is linked to global warming. That raises the possibility of a self-feeding cycle, Wiedinmyer said.

The scientists used satellite imagery, computer models and combustion rates to determine how much carbon dioxide is released during a fire, Wiedinmyer said.

Last week, the California Air Resources Board estimated that just under 6 million tons of carbon dioxide were released by the recent fires. The board estimates that for every acre burned, the carbon dioxide emissions are equivalent to two cars driven for a year, said board spokesman Stanley Young. More than half a million acres have burned in Southern California.

Young and Wiedinmyer said estimates do vary widely on scientific method.

The paper finds remarkable differences state by state and month by month. August is the worst month for carbon dioxide emissions from fires.

The Western continental United States is responsible for more than one-third of the country's carbon dioxide from fires. But Alaska is king. Alaskan fires produce twice as much of the greenhouse gas than burning fossil fuels in that state. Alaskan fires make up 27 percent of the nation's yearly fire-related carbon dioxide emissions.

In the Lower 48, California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Louisiana, Montana, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Texas are top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide through forest fires.

[ziparmux]

GASP! You mean that nature itself creates carbon all by it''''s little ol'''' lonesome! Why how dreadfully droll!


Posted by tburzio at 07:12 PM : Nov 02, 2007


Noun : droll

Usage: Archaic

1. A person who amuses others by ridiculous behaviour

And how ridiculous is the statement above?

If you want to ridicule those of us who actually care about the planet and discuss matters in hand, then go ahead. Not every person is informed about everything as well as you are perhaps. Any discussion about the welfare of our planet is far from ridiculous or "droll".

[tburzio]

GASP! You mean that nature itself creates carbon all by it''s little ol'' lonesome! Why how dreadfully droll!

[ziparmux]

Blah, blah, blah. Banter your "facts & figures" back and forth all you want. The planet has been here for a long time, man has not. It will probably be here long after man is gone. Ya think? Get over yourselves.

Posted by berniepeders at 10:38 AM : Nov 02, 2007

To quote ''Gloria Gaynor", lol "I will Survive", and that''s the point, we like to consider ourselves as an intelligent species, and survival is a part of who we are, it%u2019s within our DNA, to survive, hence we are the top of the food chain. Against all odds we beat them all, every other species on this planet, we made it. Unfortunately at this time a few individuals of our species are quite evil, and are affecting our ability to continue this most amazing product of our home, Earth. We%u2019re talking here about the survival of our species, and that deserves much more than a blah, blah and get over it etc. Are we, the majority going to sit at home and watch the Simpsons, whilst all the while before our very eyes, everything that is most important is being undermined by such a small group of individuals denying the basic necessities of life to all of our species for what, money !!!

[berniepeders]

Blah, blah, blah. Banter your "facts & figures" back and forth all you want. The planet has been here for a long time, man has not. It will probably be here long after man is gone. Ya think? Get over yourselves.

[ziparmux]

You can formulate future predictions all you want. But Mankind always end up learning from the past, eventually. The problem lies with anyone who fails to study and learn from it.

Posted by ralan40 at 08:52 PM : Nov 01, 2007

If you read all my comment, I clearly acknowledge that warming & cooling are totally natural occurring events that this planet has always experienced. 500 year ago the River Thames used to freeze over enabling Londoners to abandon the use of bridges and drive their carts and carriages across the ice. One of the earliest recorded periods of extremely cold weather in London was in 250 AD, when the Thames was frozen over for 9 weeks.

What was to blame during those periods?

I%u2019m not propagating that it%u2019s mans fault, and yes I go along with your comment, that man is giving it a little nudge. How one defines little, is a huge problem to ascertain, not even academia can agree.

One thing though we must all agree on, we are not treating our home with the regard it deserves.

[grammawhamma]

Mankind excels at interfering with nature. We have scientific advancements. We can pick the *** of our babies...soon we will clone our babies. We are the top of the food chain...the best, the smartest, the supreme.

Wrong...we are mostly hateful (just read the posts on the CBS boards). We are selfish, everything boils down to money and we will do almost anything to get more money. We are a species that kills and abuses each other more then any other species. It will be our demise.

I am not a global warming "fear factor" freak. However I am a nature freak. I respect nature...it is beautiful and it is powerful and it will survive. We are mere parasites on this earth. Treat nature kindly.

[ziparmux]

In all manmade CO2 only accounts for about .1 of the .6 degrees C of total global warming over the last 150 years. I don%u2019t know about you but a .1C increase does not seem catastrophic to me.

Posted by pboskovich at 04:37 AM : Nov 02, 2007

I used the word catastrophic, only in relation to, quote %u201Ccatastrophic events such as meteors colliding with the Earth, and fast, massive tectonic plate movement causing very rapid climate change.%u201D (which would result in massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions etc)

I like to learn and increase my knowledge and understanding and your comments are most interesting, but do please not misquote or imply things that I haven%u2019t actually said, many thanks. :)

[ziparmux]

A small correction for the writer. CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas. Its water vapor. CO2 only accounts for about 4.3 percent of the so called green house gases.

Posted by pboskovich at 03:40 AM : Nov 02, 2007


American global warming gas emissions accelerate to a record high
John Vidal, environment editor The Guardian Thursday December 22 2005

"At the G8 summit in Gleneagles in July, the US and other G8 countries agreed to ''act with resolve and urgency to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions''. But these figures emphasise the need to act with even greater urgency and resolve now." He said the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 380 parts per million, probably the highest for 20m years and more than a third higher than before the industrial revolution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/22/usnews.science

Yes there are other gases/sources, have stated that for 100''s of 1000''s of years warming and cooling of the earth has been a natural cycle of our planets environment.

I read an article the other day, stating that cattle emit 19% (methane) of all attributed gases that are accelerating this process, not a figure to be taken lightly, do you not think?

[pboskovich]

Mankind has little affect on the acceleration of global temps by adding CO2. Over the last 150 years the earth has warmed about .6C. Most of that occurred prior to 1940 which is when CO2 emissions accelerated due to the industrial revolution. However, from 1940 to 1970 the earth temperature dropped. If more CO2 means temps go up, why did it go down just as CO2 emissions began to climb?

Also, all of the major ice core readings show that temp change always precedes increases in CO2 by an average of 800 years. Temps up first, then CO2 goes up. (Al G forgot to mention that.) The reason is that the oceans take so long to adjust to changes in climate. As the oceans warm up, they produce CO2. Oceans create most of the CO2 produced on earth.

If manmade CO2 is not causing all of the global warming what is? First, the sun has an 11 year cycle of intensity. We are at a high point now. Second, changes in sun spot activity affect the sun%u2019s magnetic field. When the magnetic field is high it prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth. When fewer cosmic rays hit the earth, cloud cover and rain decrease resulting in a warmer climate. Studies show that sun spot activity is the highest it has been in over 8000 years translating into a warming period.

In all manmade CO2 only accounts for about .1 of the .6 degrees C of total global warming over the last 150 years. I don%u2019t know about you but a .1C increase does not seem catastrophic to me.

[pboskovich]

A small correction for the writer. CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas. Its water vapor. CO2 only accounts for about 4.3 percent of the so called green house gases.

[ziparmux]

But Mankind always end up learning from the past, eventually. The problem lies with anyone who fails to study and learn from it.

Posted by ralan40 at 08:52 PM : Nov 01, 2007

PS: Your comment when read through, you actually make my point for me as I had previously stated ! The Earth has always gone through warm/cold periods, all caused by naturally occurring events, from volcanoes erupting, bush fires, species numbers, flora and fauna etc, all these things have a huge impact on the Earths atmosphere, and all of which are a part of the cycle of global warming and cooling. This may (to the best of our known knowledge at this time) be the first time in Earths very long hisory where a species has accelerated the natural process of warming/cooling in it''s geological history. As man is responsible for pumping out cardbon dioxide since the dawn of the industrial revolution, to the present day at an unprecedented rate. It is reasonable to assume the Earth has never previously experienced such a shock to it''s cylce of warming and cooling in such short geological time, 150 years, caused by us aka gloabl capitalism, with the exception of when there have been catastrophic events such meteors colliding with the Earth, and fast, massive tectonic plate movement causing very rapid climate change.

[ziparmux]

ziparmux, Your facts, fed to you-predigested by the media......

Posted by ralan40 at 08:52 PM : Nov 01, 2007

How dare you make such a remark about myself. I do not actually watch a lot of media, I watch various media outlets to see what BS they are at any given point, especially when there are particular events occuring, then I like to see what BS the masses are being fed. When I look into an issue, I actually read information from many other sources to try and get an ''handle'' on things as it were, before formulating any immediate personal opinion on most issues. I go to libraries as well as use the internet to read scientific/historical etc, on any given subject that I think is important to understand. It took be the best part of 10 years to study Christianity, I ended up with a HUGE theocratic library here, in fact it was so large I donated it to a Theocratoc UNiversity. Why? Because I sincerely wanted to ''know'' why so many people believed in the Bible and to better understand the evolution of the modern Western World. So please do not make such illinformed opinions of me, when in fact you know very little about me !!

[perimogi]

Since governmental bodies routinely sue owners of something that pollutes the environment, will the Feds sue California for letting their wild lands and forests burn?

[ralan40]

ziparmux, Your facts, fed to you-predigested by the media, do sound quite compelling. However, this story right here proves that nature still calls the shots and holds the majority vote on climate change. There''s been an 8 inch rise in ocean levels every hundred years for at least 2000 years. Where is the water coming from? That''s right, melting. Study the climactic effects of the 5th and 19th century eruptions of Kracatoa. Read up about The Mayans and Anastasi, who''s cultures fell apart due to climate change hundreds of years before European Settlement. Mankind''s probably nudging the process a little bit faster But we can''t ever stop it. 10 thousand years ago the arctic ice covered N America 2 miles thick. To go from that to now and then say mankind is to blame for the recent changes is plain idiotic. You can formulate future predictions all you want. But Mankind always end up learning from the past, eventually. The problem lies with anyone who fails to study and learn from it.

[ziparmux]

We here all this rhetoric about green energy, and recyling, Global meetings of world leaders discussing how and when etc etc, and all the while Ice is falling into the Atalanic at a rate so fast it''s actually quite mind boggling. In the last 40 years alone the thickness of floating ice in the Artic Ocean is now 40% thinner. Global warming increases evaporation, which in turn leads to more precipitation (rain/snow), which mean more water is added to the ice which quickly melts as fresh water back into the Atlantic. The ice cores already show us this (interrupted by sudden reversions to glacial condition) has happened twice this past 15,000 years the last time was 12,000 years ago.This was caused by the North Atlantice Drift which brings warm water from the tropics etc, to the northern hemisphere. We really need to act quickly if we are prepared for a scenario of temeratures we have now, to an Ice Age in a space of 20 years, from the time the switch is turned OFF.

[ziparmux]

I''m not condoning mans total disregard for our home, Earth. The cylce of global warming/cooling is a total natural state of events, and through research via the sciences we have learnt this. Ice and deep sea cores gives us a peek at the last 800,000 years of our planets cycles of changing temperatures. It''s a well known fact that the Gulf Steam which keeps the northern hemisphere warm, and the switching off of this mechanism will prove catasrophic, and will plunge us into an ice age, this event is under way, as large masses of fresh water are being introduded into the northern Atlantic (thermohaline circulation). This process of off and on, happens VERY quickly, actually we are kept in the dark to how fast this switching off will effect us, we''re talkiig only a few decades and both LOndon and New York will be under a very large mass of ice. It''s too late to change this, our governments should now be working to prepare mankind for this inevitable event. Next time around then we can practice what we have learned, and not speed this natural process up, with our hindsight of what we have already done to our home.

[prairiefox1]

SEE! MI TOLD YOU! GORE IS JUST FULL OF HOT AIR!
HE DID NOTHING TO STOP THIS! HE JUST WANTED TO KEEP HIS UGLY PUSS ON TV!