Wanderscout

Wurde das wirklich ersetzt? Hab vorhin im WebArchive geschaut und konnte am Tag der Veröffentlichung auch kein „Deportation“ finden.

Edit: es geht gar nicht um den Artikel, sondern um die Produktbeschreibung eines Buches, welches im März erscheint.

I dunno man, kinda also depends on humidity which varies a lot in the Mediterranean. If you’re assuming relative humidity is the same for both conditions then sure. But if you’re trying to dry your clothes in hot, humid conditions, it will probably take longer than on dry winter days.

But you still don’t get my point. Its been hot all summer in Portugal. For 2-3 months, no rain (the important thing). Now it’s the third heat wave (as the article says), so isn’t everything that can evaporate already long evaporated? Obviously everything is ALREADY dry enough to burn and has been for weeks!

So if you tell people „ohh it will be five degrees cooler next week“, how does that make anything better?! It can be 0 degrees tomorrow, how would the fire care, if it still doesn’t rain or if the wind still fans the flames.

Maybe people will be even less careful with open fires / carelessly throwing away burning things because they have been told „heat‘s gone we’re good“. Especially problematic during dry periods in winter or spring. Can’t even see the dryness then. And if one claims (like the other user here) „wildfires in winter don’t happen“, that’s just wrong. If people are only „careful“ during crazy hot weather, because it’s communicated that way by the media and ONLY THEN when the fire already started in the first place, that’s a problem because it’s obviously far too late already. Can’t write headlines / show dramatic pictures and ultimately generate clicks and make money about fires that don’t exist yet right?

And remember, if lightning is not the cause, which is rare in Europe, but for example was responsible for the Canada fires this year (fun fact: they started in March, no heat required), it’s arson. No humans, no fires in Portugal, Rhodes, Siciliy. You could even argue that summer fires in these places aren’t even related to climate change, when average rain is 0 during June, July and August (that’s why so many tourists go there in the first place).

This turned out really long, enough for now.

Edit: also, aren’t some house plants like your succulents resistant against longer dry periods? Maybe they don’t like the high temperatures. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Imagine you have a garden/piece of nature. It doesn’t rain and you don’t water it for 3 months and then light it with fire, does your garden air temperature need to be at 40°C for it to start burning?

Are we talking past each other?

So knowing that, how is heat necessary (as you wrote) for wildfires again? Surely you’re not suggesting fires can start by themselves (the famous „natural cause“ myth)

Imagine you have a house plant. You don’t water it for 3 months and then light it with fire, does your room temperature need to be at 40°C for it to start burning?

Temperatures are forecast to fall nationwide from Tuesday, though they will mostly remain above 30 C (86 F).

Lower temperatures alone will fix the fires I’m sure. Or why this completely random weather forecast?

Spain is faring better with its wildfires this week despite the high temperatures of the country’s third heat wave this summer.

They say „despite“ as if heat could just create some random fire. Maybe one could come to the conclusion that temperatures are irrelevant for wildfires after all.

But the evaporation!? Right, the third heat wave when it hasn’t rained in two, three months must be to blame.

At some point this will just lead to legitimating climate change deniers further, and I think we would benefit from avoiding that.

Maybe the guys from Reuters should tell the Portuguese to use the „cool“ button on their hairdryer or set up giant freezers to put out the fires quicker! (Lemmy pls don’t be mad at me)

Let's look at Palermo Airport's weather station data: https://meteostat.net/de/station/16405?t=2023-06-01/2023-07-26

The last noteworthy rain fell on June 16. Since then, temperatures have slowly risen, but were mostly between 26-35°C. Only for the last two days, temperatures reached 43/44 and 42 degrees (today it's even been a steady 28 degrees). First miss-information in the title: 47°C were actually reached on the mainland, not where the fire started. Why pick a totally irrelevant temperature? Generates mores clicks.

Evaporation is not only dependent on temperature, isn't air humidity almost more important? To be fair, humidity was especially low during these two days with as low as 10% for a few hours. It all comes down to this: Is two days enough to have such a huge additional effect on evaporation compared to the 38 days without rain before?

Adding to that, I found a german source that says the fires around Palermo started on July 24 (apparently during the night after the first 40+ day), leaving even less time for significant evaporation. Haven't had the time to find a map that shows fires by date yet.

To be totally clear, it is 100% another heat wave caused/made possible by climate change. But I just think putting the (wrong) temperature in the title, when the deciding factor and cause would be drought (normal during this time of year) and arson, is misleading and doesn't accurately represent the primary factors contributing to the incident.

By the way, for which country did you check wikipedia articles for? Here is a list with plenty in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires

Thank you for the insight! But still one question: how can you pinpoint that a fire started simply because of high temperatures? How is that physically possible?

It just sounds better to include the temperature, gets them more clicks. Wildfires happen every week there, big or small, but when it’s only 30 degrees then they won’t care to include that in the title. Except for cooler places like Germany where 30 degrees would magically be enough to be mentioned in the title again 😅

June/July/August are on average the driest months in southern Italy. If the soil is already dry because it hasn’t rained in two months there shouldn’t be anything left to evaporate. My point is, it should be communicated clearer that it’s burning not because it’s hot (people really think fires can randomly start by themselves), but because of arson, negligence or intention.

Yes, but sadly even reputable sources implicate that in their articles.

Correct?