2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.
Comments
-
Here's how the IPCC report the state of the current climate in the SPM from the latest report
"A.1.2 Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature8 in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-19009 . Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C). Additionally, methodological advances and new datasets contributed approximately 0.1ºC to the updated estimate of warming in AR610"
This statement shows the margin for error in their report, and it also demonstrates that they are constantly improving the datasets and methodologies to reduce those confidence intervals.
You might not like the idea that this much warming has occurred, but given that this report is compiled by experts reviewing all of the best and most up to date published research, you have to at least grant that they have probably already considered your objections and accounted for them in the data.
Regarding Canada, the extra 140ppm of CO2 caused the extra 1.1c of global average temperature increase, which represents an absolutely enormous amount of additional energy.
This additional energy causes thermal expansion which has led to increases in atmospheric pressure, according to a study by the UK Met.
The PNW heatwave was caused by a high pressure anti-cyclone and accompanied by an unprecedented geopotential height at 500hPa (for that region)
"Apart from global scale surface warming, anthropogenic forcings also lead to warming and thermal expansion of the lower atmosphere. Here we investigate these effects using the geopotential height at 500 hPa, an indicator of the combined thermodynamic and dynamic climatic response to external forcings. We employ optimal fingerprinting, which uses information from reanalysis data sets and experiments with seven state-of-the-art climate models, to assess the role of anthropogenic and natural influences on changes in the geopotential height during the satellite era. A significant global increase in the annual and seasonal mean geopotential height due to human influence is detected, a result confirmed with four different reanalysis data sets. A more moderate increase in the annual mean associated with natural forcings is also detected. Our findings, consistent with previous detection and attribution studies of changes in temperature and sea level pressure, indicate the prominent role of human influence on some recent climatic changes."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL066669
The Weather Attribution Study into the PNW heatwave have a detailed analysis of why they think this event was virtually impossible without AGW
They studied the records from weather stations in the pacific north west to determine how anomalous the readings were compared to historical records, and they used multiple climate models to cross check the observed data, and to simulate how likely these temperatures would have been reached in a world where CO2 levels were 280ppm vs 410ppm
This paper has not been peer reviewed yet, so if you can find flaws in their methodology or statistical analyses, I'm sure they'd be happy to take those on board and correct their findings if applicable.
Here's what they found
"Results for current vs past climate, i.e. for 1.2°C of global warming vs pre-industrial conditions (1850-1900), indicate an increase in intensity of about 2.0 ˚C (1.2 ˚C to 2.8 ˚C) and a PR of at least 150. Model results for additional future changes if global warming reaches 2°C indicate another increase in intensity of about 1.3 ˚C (0.8 ˚C to 1.7 ˚C) and a PR of at least 3, with a best estimate of 175. This means that an event like the current one, that is currently estimated to occur only once every 1000 years, would occur roughly every 5 to 10 years in that future world with 2°C of global warming"
"The evolution of this event can be explained by a confluence of meso- and synoptic-scale dynamical features, potentially including antecedent low-moisture conditions. At the synoptic scale, an omega-block developed over the study area beginning at roughly 00UTC on June 25th centred at ~125 ˚W, 52 ˚N, which then very slowly progressed eastward over subsequent days. This ridge featured a maximal 500 hpa geopotential height of ~5980 m, which is unprecedented for this area of western North America for the period from 1948 through to June 2021 at least (Figure 14). Despite being a record, this extreme high pressure system – sometimes called a “Heat dome” – is not that anomalous given the long-term trend in 500 hPa driven by thermal expansion (Christidis and Stott, 2015). Also, comparing recent heatwaves in the Pacific NW to the extreme heatwave in Western Europe in 2019 (Vautard et al., 2020), the geopotential height reached similar anomalies and has a similar long-term trend (Figure 14)."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL066669
"7.3 Influence of modes of natural variability The El Niño Southern Oscillation is the dominant source of interannual variability in the region through the Pacific North American teleconnection. The influence is typically greatest in late winter and spring and has less clear impacts during summer and fall. Because ENSO was neutral during the preceding months and the impacts on TXx are minimal (r<0.1) we conclude that it had no influence on the occurrence of the heatwave. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) can affect some aspects of North American summer weather, although again the connections to heatwaves in this region are very weak. The strongly negative values of the PDO index, as they occurred in May, would slightly favor cooler conditions for this region. PDO thus also is unlikely to have played an important role in the event. Altogether, external modes of variability appear to have played little to no role in the formation of the event. "
I do not want to get into a debate into the SST records or sea level increases by picking individual 'examples'. This is not how the conclusions on SST and Sea level increases are reached. The IPCC only reports findings from the Peer reviewed literature, they review the latest research and if that research says SSTs and Sea levels are rising, then I'm happy to accept this.
3 -
CO2 and CO2 equivalent gas concentrations in the Atmosphere are the central issue relating to AGW
Land use comes into it only where changing the land use either increases or reduces the CO2 sequestered by that land and contributes to increasing or decreasing GHGs
Chopping down a forest to turn it into monoculture agriculture contributes to AGW because it contributes to increasing GHGs
The Urban heat island effect is local rather than global and isn't really considered a factor in AGW although it can lead to more intense conditions in heatwaves, but where identified, these are adjusted down in the global temperature records
0 -
This is a very bad idea. I wish politicians would listen to the scientists instead of taking the 'easy way' to meet their committments
0 -
Fair enough, sorry if I misquoted you. Still, your point still remains that you agree that several other factors are at play in the temperature signal, so I'll ask the question again; do you think they together add up to more or less than the effect of changes to the composition of the atmosphere? I would also add to that list the drastic reduction in aerosol emissions in the past few decades, which has had a negative (or positive, depending on how you look at it) effect on temperature.
0 -
I never said AGW wasn't driving climate change. I said AGW wasn't the sole driver in the Greece fire and also that Carbon reduction wasn't a panacea to our problems. Then I elaborated on why carbon wasn't the only issue.
So which one are you questioning?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Translation. Science be damned politicians should only carry actions that accord with my invalid apocryphal beliefs.
It is worth noting 50 years ago scientists held a different consensus view when telling their story to politicians and the media about climate.
Always remember catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is just a vehicle of convenience for many people and climate policy is becoming overtly economically destructive and being rejected by populations when given a chance.
The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually scheduled to happen in about a decade’s time. In 1972 – half a century ago – Maurice Strong, the first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world “had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe”.
In 1982 his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before “an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”. Yet 2000 came and went and we just partied like it was 1999…
In 1989 the official was warning that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or “climate change goes beyond human control”. By 1990 Tolba was warning the world must fix global warming before 1995, “otherwise, we’d lose the climate struggle”. Now 20 years past that date when it was going to be too late, we are still hearing the same claims again.
As sea levels would rise we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a decade ago, they’re actually building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges river in the Himalayas, the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges river still flows and the glaciers are still there. The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving. We were told by the UN Food Programme in the sixties that Earth could not feed a growing population and that the future was bleak with much of humanity facing starvation. The earth’s population has more than doubled since the sixties with fewer people in absolute poverty…
Don’t believe the doomsters. Don’t bet against humanity’s ingenuity…
Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
1 -
I'm not interested in what climate models have to say about a past event, I'm interested in what actual observations show about it.
I note that you don't have a figure on how many degrees the extra CO2 caused in the Pacific NW heatwave but you do make a single statement that the cause was due to anomalously high Z500 at the time and then quote a hasty rapid-attribution study involving 27 contributors from 21 institutions around all corners of the globe. Amazing how efficient so many people were to get this paper out so quickly. The other UKMO paper cited is, by their own admission, not worth much, with a lot of woolly assumptions and data gaps.
But let's take a look at what the Speedy Gonzalez attributors said about the actual observations, which you failed to quote (emphasis mine). It would appear that the synoptic setup was not exceptional, rainfall anomalies were mixed throughout the region and the real cause of the excess heat was downslope subsidence on the west of the mountains. Remember, subsiding air warms at a rate of 1 degree per 100 metres or your 6 degrees in 600 metres.
The evolution of this event can be explained by a confluence of meso- and synoptic-scale dynamical features, potentially including antecedent low-moisture conditions. At the synoptic scale, an omega-block developed over the study area beginning at roughly 00UTC on June 25th centred at ~125 ˚W, 52 ˚N, which then very slowly progressed eastward over subsequent days. This ridge featured a maximal 500 hpa geopotential height of ~5980 m, which is unprecedented for this area of western North America for the period from 1948 through to June 2021 at least (Figure 14). Despite being a record, this extreme high pressure system – sometimes called a “Heat dome” – is not that anomalous given the long-term trend in 500 hPa driven by thermal expansion (Christidis and Stott, 2015). Also, comparing recent heatwaves in the Pacific NW to the extreme heatwave in Western Europe in 2019 (Vautard et al., 2020), the geopotential height reached similar anomalies and has a similar long-term trend (Figure 14).
The circulation pattern itself also appears not extremely anomalous: using analogues of 500 hPa and a pattern correlation metric to compare fields, we find that about 1% of June and July circulation patterns, defined as the 500 hPa geopotential height pattern within [160 ˚W-110 ˚W ; 35 ˚N-65 ˚N] in previous years have an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8 with the 28 June pattern. This degree of correlation is typical among days with this type of blocking pattern during the months of June and July., Roughly one third of June and July geopotential height fields have 1% or fewer analogues with an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8. We also find that this fraction does not change when restricting the analogues search within 3 distinct time periods between 1948 and 2020. We conclude that the 28 June circulation is likely not exceptional, while temperatures associated with it were.
At the meso-scale, high solar irradiance during the longest days of the year and strong subsidence increased near-surface air temperatures during the event. As is typical for summer heatwaves in the region a meso-scale thermal trough developed and reached southwest Oregon by 00UTC on the 28th June. This feature migrated northward reaching the northern tip of Washington State by 00UTC on the 29th. Further offshore, a small cut-off low travelled southwest to northeast around the synoptic-scale trough that made up the west arm of the omega block. The pressure gradients associated with the thermal trough and the cut-off low promoted moderate E-SE flow in the northern and eastern sectors of the feature and S-SW flow to the south. Near-surface winds with easterly components crossed the Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon and the southern Coast Mountains of British Columbia. The difference in elevation on the west and east sides of the mountain ranges contributed to more adiabatic heating than cooling, which helped drive the warmest temperatures observed in the event along the foot of the west slope of these mountains, at sea level
There is no scientific consensus whether blocking events are made more severe or persistent because of Arctic amplification or other mechanisms (i.e. Tang et al, 2014; Barnes and Screen, 2015; Vavrus, 2018).We contend that Arctic sea-ice was unlikely to have played a large role in this event largely due to the timing.
An additional feature of the event is the very dry antecedent conditions that may have contributed to observed extreme temperatures through reduced latent cooling from low evapotranspiration rates.
The precipitation anomaly ranges from close to zero over the Puget Sound area including Seattle to values of between −0.6 and −0.8, meaning that only 20-40% of the average amount of precipitation fell in these locations, in Western Oregon. Note that in the northern parts of the area affected by the heatwave, i.e. in the coastal mountains north of Vancouver Island, large positive precipitation anomalies occurred over recent months.
The available moisture is also influenced by evapotranspiration, which depends strongly on temperature, radiation and available atmospheric moisture. Evaporation was close to normal in the ERA5 reanalysis March–May in this area (not shown), so does not seem to have played a large role in setting the stage for the heatwave.
I don't know why you don't want to discuss the sea surface data I provided, seeing as Met Éireann themselves chose only one station, not me. Pity.
0 -
You really are clueless - deforestation, drainage of wetlands etc. on a large scale drastically change the hydro and thermal regimes on a regional basis The case of the Aral Sea and the declining flows of rivers originating from the intensively deforested states in Brazil like Mato Grosso prove that.
0 -
Before we radically alter life on earth to prevent Forrest fires. Perhaps we should tackle the arsonists with petrol cans first?
Post edited by Nabber on0 -
In other words, Lets do nothing
3 -
Advertisement
-
Ah yes, sure with AGW what's the point in stopping arson?
Greek authorities say arson is partly responsible for some of the wildfires across the country.
As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by people, according to the U.S. Department of Interior
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-wildfires
Maybe arson and fire safety ignorance is worth tackling, maybe that problem is easier to solve than a modelled theory.
1 -
Some more for you. Sardinia, just in the past few weeks.
Oristano fires: Two out of the three outbreaks were arson
Little doubt that the start of the disaster was manmade
Arson fire destroys 150 hectares in the Ittiri countryside
A 2017 report: Boom in arson fires in Sardinia: 2000 in two months.
Already 500 more than the same period last year. Governor Piglaru: Zero tolerance towards the perpetrators, they must pay.
In Europe, 57% of wildfires are started by humans.
3 -
Why would I go into detail on specific station records, I do not have the time, or the training or the experience or access to the necessary resources to do this. The IPCC are there to review the published data and their conclusions are in their latest report. Your 'I don't care' about models or lack of belief in the statistical underpinnings of the climate science is nothing but hubris.
The chapter on sea levels and SSTs are here
This is the headline relating to sea levels -
"Global mean sea level (GMSL) rose faster in the 20th century than in any prior century over the last 33 three millennia (high confidence), with a 0.20 [0.15–0.25] m rise over the period 1901 to 2018 (high 34 confidence). GMSL rise has accelerated since the late 1960s, with an average rate of 2.3 [1.6–3.1] mm yr-1 over the period 1971–2018 increasing to 3.7 [3.2–4.2] mm yr-1 35 over the period 2006–2018 (high 36 confidence). New observation-based estimates published since SROCC lead to an assessed sea level rise 37 over the period 1901 to 2018 that is consistent with the sum of individual components. While ocean thermal 38 expansion (38%) and mass loss from glaciers (41%) dominate the total change from 1901 to 2018, ice sheet 39 mass loss has increased and accounts for about 35% of the sea level increase during the period 2006–2018 40 (high confidence). {2.3.3, 9.6.1, 9.6.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1, Box 7.2} 41 42 At the basin scale, sea levels rose fastest in the Western Pacific and slowest in the Eastern Pacific over 43 the period 1993–2018 (medium confidence). Regional differences in sea level arise from ocean dynamics; 44 changes in Earth gravity, rotation and deformation due to land-ice and land-water changes; and vertical land 45 motion. Temporal variability in ocean dynamics dominates regional patterns on annual to decadal time scales 46 (high confidence). The anthropogenic signal in regional sea level change will emerge in most regions by 47 2100 (medium confidence). {9.2.4, 9.6.1}"
If you want to read into the detail beneath the headline they're all in the report and or the referenced studies
While I'm at it,
Here's the IPCC findings on extreme temperature and flooding
"The frequency and intensity of hot extremes have increased and those of cold extremes have decreased 53 on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1 1 showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely. In a few regions, limited 2 evidence (data or literature) prevents the reliable estimation of trends. {11.3, 11.9}
Human-induced greenhouse gas forcing is the main driver of the observed changes in hot and cold 5 extremes on the global scale (virtually certain) and on most continents (very likely).
The frequency and intensity of hot extremes will continue to increase and those of cold extremes will continue to decrease, at both global and continental scales and in nearly all inhabited regions1 15 with 16 increasing global warming levels. This will be the case even if global warming is stabilized at 1.5°C. 17 Relative to present-day conditions, changes in the intensity of extremes would be at least double at 2°C, and 18 quadruple at 3°C of global warming, compared to changes at 1.5°C of global warming. The number of hot 19 days and hot nights and the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat waves will increase 20 over most land areas (virtually certain).
. The frequency of hot temperature extreme events will very likely increase non-linearly 26 with increasing global warming, with larger percentage increases for rarer events. {11.2, 11.3, 11.9; Table 27 11.1; Figure 11.3}
The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over 32 a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased 33 on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia
Human influence, in particular greenhouse gas emissions, is likely the main driver of the observed 39 global scale intensification of heavy precipitation in land regions.
Heavy precipitation will generally become more frequent and more intense with additional global 45 warming. At global warming levels of 4°C relative to the pre-industrial, very rare (e.g., 1 in 10 or more years) heavy precipitation events would become more frequent and more intense than in the recent 2 past, on the global scale (virtually certain) and in all continents and AR6 regions. The increase in 3 frequency and intensity is extremely likely for most continents and very likely for most AR6 regions. At 4 the global scale, the intensification of heavy precipitation will follow the rate of increase in the maximum 5 amount of moisture that the atmosphere can hold as it warms (high confidence), of about 7% per 1°C of 6 global warming. The increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events will accelerate with more 7 warming and will be higher for rarer events (high confidence), with a likely doubling and tripling in the 8 frequency of 10-year and 50-year events
The projected increase in the intensity of extreme precipitation translates to an increase in the 14 frequency and magnitude of pluvial floods – surface water and flash floods – (high confidence), as 15 pluvial flooding results from precipitation intensity exceeding the capacity of natural and artificial 16 drainage systems. {11.4}
Human-induced climate change has contributed to decreases in water availability during the dry 42 season over a predominant fraction of the land area due to evapotranspiration increases (medium 43 confidence).
The land area affected by increasing drought frequency and severity expands with increasing global warming (high confidence).
The average and maximum rain rates associated with TCs, extratropical cyclones and atmospheric 22 rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world 23 (high confidence).
6 Global hydrological models project a larger fraction of land areas to be affected by an increase in 27 river floods than by a decrease in river floods (medium confidence). River floods are projected to become 28 more frequent and intense in some AR6 regions (RAR, SEA, SAS, NWS) (high confidence) and less 29 frequent and intense in others (WCE, EEU, MED) (high confidence). Regional changes in river floods are 30 more uncertain than changes in pluvial floods because complex hydrological processes and forcings, 31 including land cover change and human water management, are involved. {11.5}
It is likely that the global proportion of major TC (Category 3–5) intensities over the past four decades 30 has increased. The average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated 31 poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and TC translation speed has likely slowed 32 over the conterminous USA since 1900. Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global 33 frequency of TC rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades. None of these 34 changes can be explained by natural variability alone (medium confidence).
The proportion of intense TCs, average peak TC wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most 37 intense TCs will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence).
Compound Events, Including Dry/Hot events, Fire Weather, Compound Flooding, and Concurrent 50 Extremes 51 52 The probability of compound events has likely increased in the past due to human-induced climate 53 change and will likely continue to increase with further global warming. Concurrent heat waves and 54 droughts have become more frequent and this trend will continue with higher global warming (high 55 confidence). Fire weather conditions (compound hot, dry and windy events) have become more probable in some regions (medium confidence) and there is high confidence that they will become more frequent in some 2 regions at higher levels of global warming. The probability of compound flooding (storm surge, extreme 3 rainfall and/or river flow) has increased in some locations, and will continue to increase due to both sea level 4 rise and increases in heavy precipitation, including changes in precipitation intensity associated with TCs 5 (high confidence). The land area affected by concurrent extremes has increased (high confidence). 6 Concurrent extreme events at different locations, but possibly affecting similar sectors (e.g., critical crop7 producing areas for global food supply) in different regions, will become more frequent with increasing 8 global warming, in particular above 2°C of global warming (high confidence).
Low-Likelihood High-Impact (LLHI) Events Associated With Climate Extremes 11 12 The future occurrence of LLHI events linked to climate extremes is generally associated with low 13 confidence, but cannot be excluded, especially at global warming levels above 4°C. Compound events, 14 including concurrent extremes, are a factor increasing the probability of LLHI events (high confidence). 15 With increasing global warming some compound events with low likelihood in past and current climate will 16 become more frequent, and there is a higher chance of occurrence of historically unprecedented events and 17 surprises (high confidence). However, even extreme events that do not have a particularly low probability in 18 the present climate (at more than 1°C of global warming) can be perceived as surprises because of the pace 19 of global warming (high confidence)."
If you don't trust the IPCC, maybe you trust Exxon instead?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2
1 -
Its fascinating that you believe humans only discovered fire in the recent past
1 -
I did all the work for you on the individual stations. You don't have to do anything. Just like I did with the station differences, which you also ignored. But that's your prerogative.
Not sure what you mean by that. It's more like the media have only discovered it. Apparently heatwaves are so hot now that places are spontaneously combusting. The truth is somewhat different.
0 -
I don’t have the time, energy or knowledge to check your work. If it’s not peer reviewed, no matter how much time and effort you spent, it’s still just opinion
I am not doing any bespoke ‘work’ I only refer to validated work done by experts. I have nothing to prove, I agree entirely with everything that has already been proven, and will change my opinion as new information is validated
1 -
I think I may have touched a nerve. The Met Éireann report is not peer-reviewed? You're usually the first in with a debunk of my posts but in this case you're choosing to ignore them.
0 -
The IPCC report is more relevant to this topic
1 -
Fires start, naturally, accidentally, because of negligence or more rarely deliberately out of malice but they only become wildfires when the conditions allow for it, and they become extreme wildfires when the heat and drought are exceptional
i could pour a gallon of petrol onto the scrub behind my house today, set it alight and it wouldn’t become a wildfire.
0 -
The malice bit is more prevalent than that. The Mediterranean climate has always been marked by dry summers, with associated dry vegetation. That's nothing new. There has been no exceptional drought in Sardinia this year, yet they had one of the largest fires in recent years, and it was started maliciously. Climate change had no part in it.
1 -
Advertisement
-
50 degrees temperatures in Sicily !
0 -
Spain broke it's temperature record yesterday too, 47.4 I think
0 -
-
-
Oh right, I just read about it yesterday
0 -
Not sure where you got that from. It's currently in the low-high 30s.
Just for some more context, here are the maximum temperatures (>45 °C) recorded in Sardinia in the period 1951-1980. Those '50s and '60s were some hot decades, it appears.
1 -
Blame a cat for farting 2 metres from the station or whatever. Its always the same spiel whenever somewhere breaks a record. Cast doubt, cast doubt, cast doubt.
Just like what happens when the Kilkenny 1887 record is brought up in conversation, right?
0 -
ERA analysis (surface pressure + 850hPa temp) of that day when Sardinia recorded it's highest temperature back in '65.
850hPa temps well above 25c from N. Africa and into southern Italy. NW Europe (Ireland/UK) under Atlantic troughing, similar to the recent spell.
Analysis from CESR for last Wed:
There are many similarities between both charts, but what struck me is both had similar primary depressions over the north of Canada. Whether this is connected or not I don't know, but interesting nonetheless.
New Moon
0 -
What is the context of this?
New Moon
1 -
Advertisement
-
i could pour a gallon of petrol onto the scrub behind my house today, set it alight and it wouldn’t become a wildfire. - Akrasia
What does that prove, that Ireland is not impacted by AGW? Or are you comparing apples to oranges?
The areas that are suffering forest fires are all areas that burned long before Humans were on the scene. The wildlife and plant life has evolved with the threat of fire. Greece has a long history of man made fire of which natural fires wouldn't have had a similar impact. As with anyone who has lit a fire, there is an art to nurturing the flames and adding the correct kindling at the right moment. Compare that to people who pour petrol over an area and set it alight.
It's incredible to overlook arson as an issue, opting instead for 'we could negate arson by reducing carbon emissions' which is disingenuous to the lives and suffering of the people in these fire prone areas.
Akrasia you have displayed cult like confirmation bias!
0
