Siberia Burning

New Scientist:(paywall)

Huge wildfires are continuing to burn across the Arctic, and have now released more carbon dioxide in 2019 than in any year since satellite records began nearly two decades ago.

Temperatures have been well above average in the region, and fires erupted in boreal peatlands across Siberia around 9 June. Normally the fires would last a few days, but this year some vegetation and peatland has been ablaze for a month and a half.

The result is the rapid release of more than 121 megatonnes of carbon dioxide – more than Belgium’s annual emissions – eclipsing the previous record of 110mt of CO2 for the whole of 2004. “Based on our 17 years of data, this is unusual, particularly for northern Siberia,” says Mark Parrington of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

14 thoughts on “Siberia Burning”


  1. Putin loves his oil&gas money too much, and loves the improved transport and access to mineral resources that a melting arctic brings.


  2. Huge swathes of the Arctic on fire, ‘unprecedented’ satellite images show

    Earth’s boreal forests now burning at rate unseen in ‘at least 10,000 years’, scientists war

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-circle-wildfires-climate-change-greenland-alaska-siberia-photographs-a9015851.html

    Satellite images reveal fires across Greenland, Siberia and Alaska, with warm dry conditions following ice melt on the enormous Greenland icesheet commencing a month earlier than average.

    The pictures show forest fires and burning peat. They also reveal the extent of the damage the fires leave behind. In Alaska wildfires have already burned more than 1.6 million acres of land.

    Mark Parrington, a senior scientist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast, said the amount of CO2 emitted by Arctic wildfires between 1 June and 21 July 2019 is around 100 megatonnes and is approaching the entire 2017 fossil fuel CO2 emissions of Belgium.


  3. Just got back from a trip thru SE Colorado. Virtually every forest has been burned to some extent or damaged by beetles.


    1. Where exactly were you in CO? The SE Colorado I’ve visited was not what you would call “forested”.


  4. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?—-Which was “Where exactly were you in CO? The SE Colorado I’ve visited was not what you would call “forested”.

    I’ve been to nearly every part of Colorado and I’ve still got several maps. Answer the freaking question, please.


    1. When you don’t answer simple and obvious questions, you are not avoiding me or your other intellectual superiors here on crock—you are avoiding truth, knowledge, and logic in general (and showing what a mental misfit you are).

      Why couldn’t you at least have tried to talk your way out of it by saying you misspoke—–that you meant some OTHER part of Colorado than the SE? Why do you waste our time with your unending inanities?

      I have tried to ignore your non-contributions and not respond to them, and have even supported the few things you have said that made sense, in the hopes that you would “grow up”. I tried to do that here with the “forests of SE CO”—-it appears I have wasted my efforts.


    1. Moron! You have no “case” beyond proving once again your intellectual inadequacy.

      Enjoy your future visits to that imaginary SE Colorado where you can’t see the forest for the (nonexistent) trees.

Leave a Reply to dumboldguyCancel reply

Discover more from This is Not Cool

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading