Canada Wildfires This Year Have Released As Much CO2 As About 20% Of US Emissions

[Jim H - VA USA]

I was curious how significant the Canadian wildfire CO2 emissions are, so I decided to do some simple math....

So far this year, about 9.39M acres have burned in Canada...

'Unprecedented fire weather season' chars 9.39 million acres across Canada

Canada is ablaze from coast to coast with 425 active fires, more than half are out of control, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC). So far, fires have charred 9.39 million acres, 17 times the 20-year average. That is larger than the area of Connecticut.

news.yahoo.com

Each acre burned released about 68 tonnes of CO2 equivalent...

How much CO2 is released when one hectare of forest is burned? See more ...

Facts: - Although forests play an important role in fight against climate change, the results are devastating when they are burned. Equivalent to 170 tonnes of CO2 (methane, nitrous oxide) is released per hectare forest wildfire.

www.linkedin.com

(This reference compares well with the EPA estimate of 83 tonnes of total carbon available per acre of forest, not all of which burns in a fire - [Link]

So we have about 68 x 9.39M = 640M tonnes of CO2 released so far this year from Canadian wildfires.

In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,340.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks | US EPA

The national greenhouse gas inventory is developed each year to track trends in U.S. emissions and removals. Find emissions by source, economic sector and greenhouse gas.

www.epa.gov

So the releases from the wildfires are about 10% of US annual emissions, or about 20% of the emissions so far this year (since the year is almost half over).

The fires are sill burning....

Jim

 

[1srelluc]

In NYC it's so bad that breathing outdoors for one hour is like smoking six cigarettes.

The Hosers owe the US reparations.....And no, maple syrup won't do.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

In NYC it's so bad that breathing outdoors for one hour is like smoking six cigarettes.

The Hosers owe the US reparations.....And no, maple syrup won't do.

That's some serious chain smoking, but without the nicotine.

Are you sure that the smoke isn't coming form the free crack pipes?

On a serious note, I heard that reported as well, and was wondering how they come up with that. Air quality index is a measure of PM2.5 particulates and goes from 0-500, where levels of 500 are considered unsafe for anyone and all outdoor activity is discouraged. Smoking one cigarette exposes someone to about 22 micrograms of PM 2.5, and this is supposed to be equivalent to and AQI of 72 for 24 hours.

More detailed explanation here...

Breathing in wildfire smoke comparable to smoking 3 to 11 cigarettes a day

Take a step outside and you'll notice the thick haze and possibly even smell smoke. Northerly winds have carried wildfire smoke nearly 500 miles from Quebec, Ca

cnycentral.com

The math probably adds up for particulates, is missing some other important aspects, but it's probably not a bad ballpark estimate.

Since it's NYC, it would seem more appropriate for them to use marijuana cigarettes for the math.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The irony....

Trudeau is blaming climate change for the wildfires.

Justin Trudeau says wildfires were caused by climate change

Biden yesterday sent 600 American firefighters to Canada to help battle the fires that have been raging for six weeks north of the border.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The wildfires are releasing more CO2 than the entire US transportation industry.

 

[Dekster]

If only Canada had raked its forests. They should send us some reparations before the next President decides to ban their bacon. He is petty like that.

 

[Polishprince]

US Liberal president James K. Polk was right when he said "54 40 or fight". The Canadians really need to surrender some of their land if they aren't able to manage it.

 

[1srelluc]

US Liberal president James K. Polk was right when he said "54 40 or fight". The Canadians really need to surrender some of their land if they aren't able to manage it.

I'm all for invading Hoserland but we are no better at forest management than they are.

I guess we would have to cleanse the surly Quebeckers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Obviously Trudeau could care less about global warming.
If he did, he would have put $100s millions into hiring more forestry staff/equipment etc. to do controlled burns, cut away brush/create fire lines etc.
But he didn't do it.
Making Trudeau one of the greatest contributors to global warming in history.
Typical liberal, always preaching about what others need to do - but never taking their own advice.

 

[EMH]

The irony....

Trudeau is blaming climate change for the wildfires.

Justin Trudeau says wildfires were caused by climate change

Biden yesterday sent 600 American firefighters to Canada to help battle the fires that have been raging for six weeks north of the border.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The wildfires are releasing more CO2 than the entire US transportation industry.

LOL!!!


Another liar who is deliberately misinterpreting the real problem - too many humans sucking too much fresh water from nature.

A warmer Earth is a WETTER Earth - less fires.

The Co2 crowd is absolutely hilariously wrong on this issue, and it outs the truth that they are SCIENCE INVALIDS...

 

[ReinyDays]

The flaw in the OP is that the carbon released burning wood is natural ... that wood was created using carbon from the atmosphere ... a gigatonne is absorbed by plants, then a gigatonne is released by plants when burned ... net zero emissions ...

That's different from burying the plants for 300 million years and then burning them ... for human comfort ...

I don't know what the problem is in Canada, but the problem in California is rain ... more rain grows more grass, which then dries out during summer creating a BIGGER fire risk ... summer droughts every year ... July 18th, 2158, Fresno will be hot and dry ... and smoky ...

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The flaw in the OP is that the carbon released burning wood is natural ... that wood was created using carbon from the atmosphere ... a gigatonne is absorbed by plants, then a gigatonne is released by plants when burned ... net zero emissions ...

That's different from burying the plants for 300 million years and then burning them ... for human comfort ...

I don't know what the problem is in Canada, but the problem in California is rain ... more rain grows more grass, which then dries out during summer creating a BIGGER fire risk ... summer droughts every year ... July 18th, 2158, Fresno will be hot and dry ... and smoky ...

It's still a net increase. It takes decades for the forest to regrow.

If the forest is cut down, and things are built from it, the carbon is sequestered for centuries or millennia.

The point of the OP is that we silly humans think are baby steps at things like banning gas stoves or encouraging EVs to appease the Climate God are quite trivial compared to Mother Nature.

These CO2 releases from the ongoing forest fires in Canada alone are greater than the releases from the entire US transportation industry - cars, trucks, planes, etc. I think it is an interesting comparison.

Forests burning wood is natural, but humans burning coal (made by nature from wood) is not, eh. I know, humans are bad.

Regards,
Jim

 

[ReinyDays]

It's still a net increase. It takes decades for the forest to regrow.

If the forest is cut down, and things are built from it, the carbon is sequestered for centuries or millennia.

The point of the OP is that we silly humans think are baby steps at things like banning gas stoves or encouraging EVs to appease the Climate God are quite trivial compared to Mother Nature.

These CO2 releases from the ongoing forest fires in Canada alone are greater than the releases from the entire US transportation industry - cars, trucks, planes, etc. I think it is an interesting comparison.

Forests burning wood is natural, but humans burning coal (made by nature from wood) is not, eh. I know, humans are bad.

Regards,
Jim

Your mistake here is not understanding that climate is measure in 100-year intervals minimum ... better is using 10,000-year averages ... the dominate feature of climate east of the Rockies is ... well ... the Rockies ... 60 million years in the making ...

"Decades" is weather ... and yes ... it's weather causing the fires ... not climate ...

How many wooden buildings are there in your area that are 1,000 years old? ... how about just a 100 years old? ... my neighborhood was built in the 1890's, only mine and another building still stand ... 20 square blocks and only two lasted 100 years ... all the rest were torn down and burnt ... not sequestered for millennia ... we can sequester stone for millennia, but not wood ... that's not how carbon behaves ...

Another mistake you make is thinking 4 ppm per year is a large amount ... it isn't ... put 4 ppm salt in your drinking water and I'll warrant you can't tell ... that's 4 ppm carbon dioxide from ALL sources ... including the largest active volcano on Earth erupting across the road to where we measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... pretty funny ...

How much of Canada is plowed every year for agriculture ... how much of Anglo-America ... that does more to warm the Earth than trivial amounts of carbon dioxide ...

=====

Why does Canada want more snow ? ... Global warming is a GOOD thing for them ... we should help our northern brethren and sisterage by burning all our coal ...

 

[EMH]

Your mistake here is not understanding that climate is measure in 100-year intervals minimum ... better is using 10,000-year averages ... the dominate feature of climate east of the Rockies is ... well ... the Rockies ... 60 million years in the making ...

"Decades" is weather ... and yes ... it's weather causing the fires ... not climate ...

How many wooden buildings are there in your area that are 1,000 years old? ... how about just a 100 years old? ... my neighborhood was built in the 1890's, only mine and another building still stand ... 20 square blocks and only two lasted 100 years ... all the rest were torn down and burnt ... not sequestered for millennia ... we can sequester stone for millennia, but not wood ... that's not how carbon behaves ...

Another mistake you make is thinking 4 ppm per year is a large amount ... it isn't ... put 4 ppm salt in your drinking water and I'll warrant you can't tell ... that's 4 ppm carbon dioxide from ALL sources ... including the largest active volcano on Earth erupting across the road to where we measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... pretty funny ...

How much of Canada is plowed every year for agriculture ... how much of Anglo-America ... that does more to warm the Earth than trivial amounts of carbon dioxide ...

=====

Why does Canada want more snow ? ... Global warming is a GOOD thing for them ... we should help our northern brethren and sisterage by burning all our coal ...

There is to date precisely ZERO evidence outside of FUDGE that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes atmospheric warming.

 

[martybegan]

I was curious how significant the Canadian wildfire CO2 emissions are, so I decided to do some simple math....

So far this year, about 9.39M acres have burned in Canada...

'Unprecedented fire weather season' chars 9.39 million acres across Canada

Canada is ablaze from coast to coast with 425 active fires, more than half are out of control, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC). So far, fires have charred 9.39 million acres, 17 times the 20-year average. That is larger than the area of Connecticut.

news.yahoo.com

Each acre burned released about 68 tonnes of CO2 equivalent...

How much CO2 is released when one hectare of forest is burned? See more ...

Facts: - Although forests play an important role in fight against climate change, the results are devastating when they are burned. Equivalent to 170 tonnes of CO2 (methane, nitrous oxide) is released per hectare forest wildfire.

www.linkedin.com

(This reference compares well with the EPA estimate of 83 tonnes of total carbon available per acre of forest, not all of which burns in a fire - [Link]

So we have about 68 x 9.39M = 640M tonnes of CO2 released so far this year from Canadian wildfires.

In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,340.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks | US EPA

The national greenhouse gas inventory is developed each year to track trends in U.S. emissions and removals. Find emissions by source, economic sector and greenhouse gas.

www.epa.gov

So the releases from the wildfires are about 10% of US annual emissions, or about 20% of the emissions so far this year (since the year is almost half over).

The fires are sill burning....

Jim

Doesn't equate to long term sequestered carbon being released due to vegetations relatively shorter time span of holding said carbon.

Comparing apples and oranges. Even if AGW is a giant watermelon plot, at least get the concepts right.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

A carbon sink being torched, degraded or otherwise destroyed to where it no longer offsets the CO2 introduced into the system is not net zero emissions jfc.

 

[martybegan]

A carbon sink being torched, degraded or otherwise destroyed to where it no longer offsets the CO2 introduced into the system is not net zero emissions jfc.

The sink grows back. Where do you think the carbon comes from?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

not necessarily so jfc. the amazon rainforest is just going to grow back. wtf. if the destruction is due to a conversion by man to build a mall, a suburb, a fucking cattle ranch, then returning to the prior state is definitely not guaranteed and in no effin' way carbon neutral. if the loss is precipitated by climatic changes, the same applies. holy shit.

 

[martybegan]

not necessarily so jfc. the amazon rainforest is just going to grow back. wtf. if the destruction is due to a conversion by man to build a mall, a suburb, a fucking cattle ranch, then returning to the prior state is definitely not guaranteed and in no effin' way carbon neutral. if the loss is precipitated by climatic changes, the same applies. holy shit.

So the entire burn area in this case is going to be turned into a strip mall?

Now, if Dollar General is involved, I can see it happening.....

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Your mistake here is not understanding that climate is measure in 100-year intervals minimum ... better is using 10,000-year averages ... the dominate feature of climate east of the Rockies is ... well ... the Rockies ... 60 million years in the making ...

"Decades" is weather ... and yes ... it's weather causing the fires ... not climate ...

How many wooden buildings are there in your area that are 1,000 years old? ... how about just a 100 years old? ... my neighborhood was built in the 1890's, only mine and another building still stand ... 20 square blocks and only two lasted 100 years ... all the rest were torn down and burnt ... not sequestered for millennia ... we can sequester stone for millennia, but not wood ... that's not how carbon behaves ...

Another mistake you make is thinking 4 ppm per year is a large amount ... it isn't ... put 4 ppm salt in your drinking water and I'll warrant you can't tell ... that's 4 ppm carbon dioxide from ALL sources ... including the largest active volcano on Earth erupting across the road to where we measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... pretty funny ...

How much of Canada is plowed every year for agriculture ... how much of Anglo-America ... that does more to warm the Earth than trivial amounts of carbon dioxide ...

=====

Why does Canada want more snow ? ... Global warming is a GOOD thing for them ... we should help our northern brethren and sisterage by burning all our coal ...

Well you seemed to claim in you OP sentence that forest burning down was somehow acceptable since it is "natural."

>The flaw in the OP is that the carbon released burning wood is natural

I take issue with that.

The fact that fossil fuels are "natural" resources is inarguable, and burning them actually has tremendous benefits to humanity, unlike burning forests.

 

[ReinyDays]

There is to date precisely ZERO evidence outside of FUDGE that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes atmospheric warming.

Is that what your kitchen counter tests are showing? ...