It's difficult to assign climate change as a direct cause to any given catastrophic event, in the same way as we couldn't blame any particular case of cancer back during the atmospheric atomic bomb testing days on atomic bomb testing. However, there was a causal relationship back then between increase in background radiation levels and increase in cancer levels, as there is a causal relationship now between increased thermal energy levels in the atmosphere due to carbon dioxide's heat-trapping effects, and catastrophic environmental events. And while this fire may cause a blip in atmospheric CO2 levels, it isn't fossil carbon that's being spewed into the atmosphere - this is carbon that was part of the carbon cycle, not the excess that you get from burning fossil fuels. No direct comparison.
2 comments:
so does that qualify as human-caused global warming? How do its carbon emissions compare with say vehicle traffic in Montreal?
It's difficult to assign climate change as a direct cause to any given catastrophic event, in the same way as we couldn't blame any particular case of cancer back during the atmospheric atomic bomb testing days on atomic bomb testing. However, there was a causal relationship back then between increase in background radiation levels and increase in cancer levels, as there is a causal relationship now between increased thermal energy levels in the atmosphere due to carbon dioxide's heat-trapping effects, and catastrophic environmental events.
And while this fire may cause a blip in atmospheric CO2 levels, it isn't fossil carbon that's being spewed into the atmosphere - this is carbon that was part of the carbon cycle, not the excess that you get from burning fossil fuels. No direct comparison.
Post a Comment