Could Wildfire Smoke Become America's Leading Climate Health Threat By 2050? (yahoo.com) 81
"New research suggests ash and soot from burning wildlands has caused more than 41,000 excess deaths annually from 2011 to 2020," reports the Los Angeles Times:
By 2050, as global warming makes large swaths of North America hotter and drier, the annual death toll from smoke could reach between 68,000 and 71,000, without stronger preventive and public health measures...
In the span studied, millions of people were exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution. When inhaled, this microscopic pollution not only aggravates people's lungs, it also enters the bloodstream, provoking inflammation that can induce heart attacks and stroke. For years, researchers have struggled to quantify the danger the smoke poses. In the paper published in Nature, they report it's far greater than public health officials may have recognized. Yet most climate assessments "don't often include wildfire smoke as a part of the climate-related damages. And it turns out, by our calculation, this is one of the most important climate impacts in the U.S."
The study also estimates a higher number of deaths than previous work in part because it projected mortality up to three years after a person has been exposed to wildfire smoke. It also illustrates the dangers of smoke drifting from fire-prone regions into wetter parts of the country, a recent phenomenon that has garnered more attention with large Canadian wildfires contributing to hazy skies in the Midwest and East Coast in the last several years. "Everybody is impacted across the U.S.," said Minghoa Qiu [lead author and assistant professor at Stony Brook University]. "Certainly the Western U.S. is more impacted. But the Eastern U.S. is by no means isolated from this problem."
In the span studied, millions of people were exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution. When inhaled, this microscopic pollution not only aggravates people's lungs, it also enters the bloodstream, provoking inflammation that can induce heart attacks and stroke. For years, researchers have struggled to quantify the danger the smoke poses. In the paper published in Nature, they report it's far greater than public health officials may have recognized. Yet most climate assessments "don't often include wildfire smoke as a part of the climate-related damages. And it turns out, by our calculation, this is one of the most important climate impacts in the U.S."
The study also estimates a higher number of deaths than previous work in part because it projected mortality up to three years after a person has been exposed to wildfire smoke. It also illustrates the dangers of smoke drifting from fire-prone regions into wetter parts of the country, a recent phenomenon that has garnered more attention with large Canadian wildfires contributing to hazy skies in the Midwest and East Coast in the last several years. "Everybody is impacted across the U.S.," said Minghoa Qiu [lead author and assistant professor at Stony Brook University]. "Certainly the Western U.S. is more impacted. But the Eastern U.S. is by no means isolated from this problem."
Re:durrrrr (Score:5, Funny)
I sense a great disturbance in the Force. As if punctuation itself cried out and was silenced.
Three parrots flew into a bar (Score:2)
Ouch, ouch, ouch.
Okay, you got your funny mod points, but did you have to propagate the vacuous Subject, too? On the grounds of your Funny, I forgive you for getting me to look at AC's tripe, though I didn't actually try to read it. Enough to know he was too ashamed to even attach a handle to the tripe...
(Now if I was an actual humorist I would have figured out a way to work a wind turbine into my joke, but that was just a replacement/filler joke because I couldn't figure out how to create a Subject full of
Re:durrrrr (Score:4, Funny)
how long ago did your wife leave you for a cyclist
(I know you aren't being serious) (Score:2)
Interesting idea. I mean there are some snags, like that children ride bikes too. And if the smoke gives them a life-long respiratory disease then society will be on the hook paying for it. Either because your nation has taxpayer funded healthcare, or because private insurers will have to raise premiums in order to maintain profits.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:At the rate objective studies are blocked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who needs research when the Department of Cleanest Pollution will guarantee your safety?
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs research when the Department of Cleanest Pollution will guarantee your safety?
Slight correction, they guarantee a safe tee. You know, golf is one of the few things that comes ahead of ruling a nation with an iron thumb.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
OK, MacMann. You're a fucking idiot. Let's talk about some of the dumb shit you wrote, you fucking moron:
Bad forest management. We stopped clearing underbrush. We stopped logging. We stomp out every tiny fire that could have safely burned off all that underbrush so the level of dry underbrush grows every year. What is another word for underbrush? Fuel.
20% right as usual, Morty. We reduced clear-cutting of forests. We did not stop logging. We do not stomp out every tiny fire. Why don't you do some reading before running your sausage fingers? https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/... [usda.gov]
Bad forest management would certainly be a contributing factor. I'd expect that even in spite of some global warming we could manage the forests in ways that would keep the wildfires from causing so much pollution. We can't be rid of forest fires completely since these fires are part of the natural process that maintains the forests, some tree species need fire to reproduce. There were forests and wildfires before humans arrived. With proper management we can aid the forests to recover from fires more quickly, and keep the fires from damaging populations of birds and furry woodland creatures. Oh, and keep the wildfires from damaging homes, businesses, and so much else.
A bunch of vapid bullshit and vague, worthless statements.
California is certainly the worst offender on poor management of wildfires, and things that can spark the fires like poorly maintained electric utility lines.
What an ignorant fucking statement, you cunt. The federal government controls and manages most of the forested are
Re:Forest management (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, born and raised in NorCal. If you bothered to pay attention to the place you were supposedly living in you'd know that our wild fires were caused by a massive drought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that lead to over 100 million tree deaths with 60 million happening in the last year of it in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Our problem with fires threatening major towns and cities only started in 2017.
Now tell me oh wise "person who used to live in California" how was California supposed to clean all that shit up when its forested areas are larger than a lot of countries?
All you're doing here is parroting one of many smear campaigns against California that so many conservatives seem to delight in.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I make up some random shit like that?
The various things you've said over the years make most of us call everything you say into question. As to the why, we don't know why you would do that, attention maybe? I guess burning your personal reputation for so long has this small consequence, but I'm not worried, I don't think it will alter your behavior in the slightest.
California is a drought state. It was a drought region before the modern era.
A drought climate is not simply a binary state, an either you is or you ain't. There is nuance here, and we have seen a shift in the drought cycles over the last 100 years.
How should they clean up the underbrush? The way nature intended. The area's trees are naturally resistant to smaller fires
That's al
Re:Forest management (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think global warming and temperature affect rainfall?
You think higher temperatures don't dry things out more?
classic MAGA brainlessness
California should rake their forests (Score:4, Interesting)
Youâ(TM)ve got to take care of the floors. You know the floors of the forests, itâ(TM)s very important.
Finland is a forest nation. And they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they donâ(TM)t have any problem.
Re: California should rake their forests (Score:2)
Ack, dang unicode quotes got me!
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, my Dad has a landscape rake for his Cub Cadet. And you can scale the concept up in size.
Of course, a landscape rake is not going to work in the coastal forests here. It will get hung up on coyote brush and roots. And coastal redwoods grow in tight clusters, where even a hand rake is not easily brought between them. (I helped my neighbor clear up his "yard" of 40 redwoods. It looks beautiful now and a local couple had their wedding there shortly after).
For me, a brush cutter on the front of a skid steer
Re:California should rake their forests (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
they don't have any problem.
Ill bet the forests where they do this have lower biodiversity than those where they dont. You see the forest floor is also an ecosystem - wrecking it damages it.
Just another example of an ill thought out "climate band-aid"
Re: (Score:2)
Burn the brush. Before the fuel load gets so high it supports destructive fires. That's what the Native Americans used to do. And before them, nature. When there were no humans to wring their hands over a few burned shrubs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what we do here. But we suspend controlled burns during drought. Dang climate change making forest management trickier than it was 2,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be fair here, Finland is completely saturated with snow for large portions of the year. That helps keep the fire danger a lot lower than in California.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the main way that salt water kills the plants. When you use salt water to put out a fire, part of that water soaks into the ground and makes it more salty than it was. Then, when the fire's out and seeds in the ground start to sprout, they may find that the soil's too salty for them and die
Hopefully, yes. (Score:2)
If thatâ(TM)s the worst climate related threat to our health, then Iâ(TM)m all for it.
2050 will be so much worse (Score:3)
If we carry on the path we are currently on its laughable we are even talking about 2050 being hospitable at all, i mean by 2030 clean water will be too scarce for everyone on the planet and all the domesticated animals we eat. Food Shortages and Crop Failures are commonplace today.
It is incredible to me like were acting as if we have time to procrastinate.
Re: (Score:2)
y 2030 clean water will be too scarce for everyone on the planet
Dude. That is only 5 years away. Short of an asteroid coming in hot and dirty, I do not think your prediction is possible, much less realistic.
No. Extreme heat will very likely be #1. (Score:5, Interesting)
The natural cascades of man-made global warming have only kicked into overdrive in recent years. Basic common sense tells us that the rate is only going to increase in the foreseeable future. Meaning that regular heat itself will be the main problem. And way earlier than 2050.
Point in case: It's nearing the end of September and temperature and humidity was flat-out tropical this weekend in western Germany. The water table here has been nothing but dropping for the last decade or so with zero replenishment happening and it ain't looking like that's gonna change. Rains have mostly reduced to short warm drizzles or the occasional 3-hour long flash-flood with a years worth of water coming down in an hour in selected counties. And flowing away within 24 hours. The first farmers in Germany are starting to move towards dryland agriculture (in effing Germany!), the complete vanishing of alpine glaciers is due in 5 years or so, perhaps even earlier and the famous German forrest with their Beeches, Oaks, Sykamores and such are officially a thing of the past because the water-cycle can't support them anymore.
Tourists have been steering clear of the mediterranean in recent years because the water was too warm. Not the air (although that too), the effing _water_ was too warm.
So I'd say in 2050 smoke from forrest-fires is likely to be one of our lesser problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you say, similar issues with rain and water levels here in the UK though not quite as bad as it sounds over there. Ironically however looking at Ventusky right now it seems there's rain over half of west germany so hopefully that'll help.
Probably the air too in the med - not everyone goes swimming but everyone wants to go outside, not just sit in the hotel. If its 40C+ who's going to want to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
aside from the constant decrease, you mean? (Score:4, Informative)
Global area burned and wildfire emissions have fallen steadily since the 1930s.
https://share.google/images/l6... [share.google]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
But by all means, don't let me interrupt your insistence the sky is falling.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the world in general less important to you than the US you ethnocentric prick?
Re: (Score:2)
I always love your posts.
You're like a walking ad for voting conservative. You do more good by opening your trap than Charlie Kirk ever accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm anti science?
Where did COVID come from, again?
How do you define what a woman is?
Re: (Score:2)
My solution is not giving a shit about the giant load of crap that is climate change and that every morning we invent a new thing to be terrified about.
There is no crisis in wildfires.
There is certainly no crisis in the 'threat' of wildfire smoke.
Don't like it? Move away from forests. Nobody in the Bahamas suffers from wildfire smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am a "denier" of ridiculous panic.
Note your word-use's religious overtones. That's not accidental. "Denier" as if what you assert is irrefutable.
The world is generally great. It's a great time to be alive, generally speaking. Certainly some people are struggling, there's always some.
Come now... (Score:2)
Link to paper (Score:3)
Prior version of this work here:
https://www.nber.org/system/fi... [nber.org]
It states: "We project that climate-driven increases in future smoke PM2.5 could result in 27,800 excess deaths per year by 2050 under a high warming scenario, a 76% increase relative to estimated 2011-2020 averages. "
From abstract published in nature:
"We project that smoke PM2.5 could result in 71,420 excess deaths (95% CI: 34,930 - 98,430) per year by 2050 under a high warming scenario (SSP3-7.0) - a 73% increase relative to estimated 2011-2020 average annual excess deaths from smoke."
Re: (Score:1)
Prior version of this work here: https://www.nber.org/system/fi... [nber.org]
It states: "We project that climate-driven increases in future smoke PM2.5 could result in 27,800 excess deaths per year by 2050 under a high warming scenario, a 76% increase relative to estimated 2011-2020 averages. "
From abstract published in nature:
"We project that smoke PM2.5 could result in 71,420 excess deaths (95% CI: 34,930 - 98,430) per year by 2050 under a high warming scenario (SSP3-7.0) - a 73% increase relative to estimated 2011-2020 average annual excess deaths from smoke."
The year is 1992. You are an undergrad in physical science at a pretty good school (but certainly not Ivy league). In a freshmen chemistry class final, you use wild extrapolation from a small data set to make significant extrapolation of the x-axis. Your professor gives heavy sigh, and gives out yet-another F. You go on to become a climate scientist and continue to do this because you never understood why it is bad. Your now dead professor can only roll over in his grave.
Re: (Score:1)
All the "excess death" studies I've read in the past made big claims about massive numbers of deaths in the summary but when you actually read the paper it turns out the "excess deaths" are of people who were already sick and close to death who might die a couple of weeks earlier due to air pollution but there was no way to prove it so really they were just making up a number. So I ignore anyone talking about "excess deaths" these days, it's a glaring red flag for fear-mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
The year is 1992. You are an undergrad in physical science at a pretty good school (but certainly not Ivy league). In a freshmen chemistry class final, you use wild extrapolation from a small data set to make significant extrapolation of the x-axis. Your professor gives heavy sigh, and gives out yet-another F. You go on to become a climate scientist and continue to do this because you never understood why it is bad. Your now dead professor can only roll over in his grave.
A number of the PM 2.5 studies I've seen do exactly this. They gather air quality data and run the figures based on preexisting models of health impacts to entire populations or even the entire planet and surprise out comes insane figures.
I just want to know how they came to radically different figures in a later revision of the same work. This is well outside the range of the CI in the version published in nature.
Prescriptive burning for the win! (Score:2)
The fools who manage the forests in California have moved on from previous disasters of management:
- First, clear cut to harvest profits
- Second, allow the forest to grow back with an unhealthy dense overgrowth
- Third, thin the overgrowth by "prescribed burning" which damages the forest, the environment, the water and, of course, human health.
In my area we fortunately haven't had any natural forest fires for a few years but we have dense smoke every year from the idiots burning the forest.
The obvious soluti
Fire Tarrifs? (Score:2)
But all jokes aside, we should start fining these states, countries, cities, etc. for these pollutions. They need to start taking responsibility for the pollution their lack of care is causing.