Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Climate Change Is Making Fire Weather Worse for World's Forests (nytimes.com) 26

An anonymous reader shares a report: In 2023 and 2024, the hottest years on record, more than 78 million acres of forests burned around the globe. The fires sent veils of smoke and several billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, subjecting millions of people to poor air quality. Extreme forest-fire years are becoming more common because of climate change, new research suggests.

"Climate change is loading the dice for extreme fire seasons like we've seen," said John Abatzoglou, a climate scientist at the University of California Merced. "There are going to be more fires like this." The area of forest canopy lost to fire during 2023 and 2024 was at least two times greater than the annual average of the previous nearly two decades, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers used imagery from the LANDSAT satellite network to determine how tree cover had changed from 2002 to 2024, and compared that with satellite detections of fire activity to see how much canopy loss was because of fire. Globally, the area of land burned by wildfires has decreased in recent decades, mostly because humans are transforming savannas and grasslands into less flammable landscapes. But the area of forests burned has gone up.

Climate Change Is Making Fire Weather Worse for World's Forests

Comments Filter:
  • Until (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eneville ( 745111 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @04:37AM (#65536258) Homepage

    Until the wealthy find their property is uninsurable, nothing will change.

    Whilst greedy people can make money at the expense of others, or move the problem somewhere else in the globe, nothing is going to happen. It is terribly sad. Culturally we need to look at greed differently, it needs to become shamed so that money doesn't get you nice things.

    • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @04:51AM (#65536272)

      The wealthy can absorb the damage or complete destruction of their property. What they would not want to do is sabotage the circumstances that made them wealthy enough to acquire the property. The holders of wealth aren't likely to want to destabilize the world order so they can hold onto property that's at risk. They'll push that risk downstream first.

      • by eneville ( 745111 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @07:57AM (#65536400) Homepage

        Lots of wealthy people have investments in land, that's why there's a push to RTO, because the land value of town centres is dropping as footfall is lower. As that has had enough knock on effect that business owners are throwing clout around to RTO, it follows that if the land is uninsurable the same business owners will take notice.

        • Sure they'll take notice. It just wont change any thing.

        • That depends on which businesses you are referring to. Fewer and fewer retail and office businesses own their own real estate. The last big one I can think of is Sears. And we all know how that ended.

          The property development, or more accurately the mortgage paper generation businesses might demand RTO. But the actual tennants can do what is best for themselves. Including closing up unused office space. Of course there will be pushback from the commercial real estate business. But the moral of the story is

      • Interesting take—but I’m not sure you're disagreeing with GP so much as sidestepping the core argument. The point wasn’t that a burned mansion breaks a billionaire, but that uninsurability is a market signal even the wealthy can’t ignore. It devalues land, kills liquidity, and—eventually—undermines the systemic wealth-preserving environment you referenced.

        As you rightly noted, some of the wealthy will try to push risk downstream—but to where? Climate risk may begin

    • Until the wealthy find their property is uninsurable, nothing will change.

      That is a claim that sounds like global warming is a first world problem. Am I wrong?

      We have something of a dilemma here, do we not? For anyone to be concerned with global warming then we'd have to get them to a point where their needs with some greater impact and urgency have been met. That means such a person has food, clean water, an education, a job, a place to live, clothing, some minimal semblance of medical care, some minimal semblance of safety and peace, and reliable and affordable energy. That

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        For anyone to be concerned with global warming then we'd have to get them to a point where their needs with some greater impact and urgency have been met. That means such a person has food, clean water, an education, a job, a place to live, clothing, some minimal semblance of medical care, some minimal semblance of safety and peace, and reliable and affordable energy.

        Well climate change is going to fuck up every one of those things before they have a chance to get to medical care on your list.
        Drought and floods will take out their food, clean water and place to live. Good luck finding an education and job as a refugee in their next country. The rest isn't even a daydream to those people.

        • Well climate change is going to fuck up every one of those things before they have a chance to get to medical care on your list.

          Are the people in this situation to believe that by trading in their Ford F-150 for a Chevy Bolt they can avoid the problems of global warming? That's unlikely. Then is the issue that expectations are that it would take 20 years to mine enough materials for replacing every car and light truck with a BEV equivalent. And that is considered a best case outcome.

          There was something on Slashdot before on how China is powering their solar PV factories with coal. If anyone is to follow that model to mitigate ag

  • Billions of tons?? There was me thinking ChatGPT generating 260 tons of carbon dioxide a month was bad.
    https://news.aibase.com/news/14945

panic: can't find /

Working...