Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imapassenger1 t1_ixec8q3 wrote

Reply to comment by Spitinthacoola in Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average. As a consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate across the continent has also become drier, particularly in southern Europe, leading to worse heat waves and an increased risk of fires. by MistWeaver80

With 2/3 desert that is unlikely to burn the percentage is much higher.

29

Spitinthacoola t1_ixeflwc wrote

That doesn't change the number in any way

−16

imapassenger1 t1_ixeh9u1 wrote

Of course it does. Take it as a percentage of the forests, not the grassy plains and deserts.

29

Skraff t1_ixewinp wrote

125 million hectares of forest total. 24 million hectares burned in 2019/2020 fires.

A much bigger deal than mr “only 2 percent of the desert caught fire” that you are replying to.

23

a8bmiles t1_ixemw1h wrote

Oh are we just throwing away data to make the results look better? Sure thing then!

"A couple years ago, 100% of Australia burned*"

^(* = measurement includes only areas that caught on fire)

−21

NedGaryNeb t1_ixf3c7a wrote

Take an example island that has 100 acres. 80 acres are baren desert and literally can't catch fire, the remaining 20 acres are forest. 10 of those acres catch fire.

Are you doing the destruction justice by saying just 10% of the island burned? Wouldn't saying "50% of the island that is flammable burned" more representative of the destruction?

7

a8bmiles t1_ixfqaz9 wrote

Yes but see, you included the words "that is flammable" and reduced ambiguity. If you were the OP you would have said "50% of the island was on fire".

Do you see the difference?

−2

RAMAR713 t1_ixfokbc wrote

Don't be infantile. Both statements are correct, but the way you're presenting the data can be misleading and is generally less useful. When considering burned areas, what matters is what can burn.

6

a8bmiles t1_ixfpbgv wrote

At least my way is clearly disingenuous and might cause someone to question the statement. His "most of Australia burned" statement is just believable enough to promulgate false information and result in someone believing that most of the land mass was on fire when that's obviously not true.

If he didn't want to be misleading he could have easily done so by adding a few more words to his statement.

1

Clearlybeerly t1_ixg0424 wrote

We can do better than that.

"A couple of years ago, 200% of Australia burned.*"

  • = measurement only includes the areas that I personally care about. But other areas I don't care about also burned, so I guess they have to be included in the total total.
0