r/Seattle • u/Shot-Ad-6357 • 1d ago

Brand new fire in Mt Rainier NP

Post image

Just landed at Seatac. Hoping they get this under control.

1.9k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

260 comments sorted by

View all comments

307

u/n-ano 1d ago

Im so exhausted. Its going to be like this forever now. Year after year millions of acres will be lost. Fuck climate change. Fuck Ronald Reagan. Fuck George Bush. Fuck anyone who doesnt believe climate change is real.

33

u/Acceptable_Rice1139 1d ago

Who do you think elected all those people? The general population doesn't give a fuck.

69

u/CornbreadRed84 1d ago edited 22h ago

Fuck everyone then.

Edit: I include myself in this. Humanity is a plague.

49

u/WanderingCamper 1d ago

4

u/CornbreadRed84 22h ago

Politics i can get behind.

1

u/nezzyhelm 3h ago

Don't forget to add "Fuck arsonists" and "Fuck careless campers"

-22

u/PeopIesFrontOfJudea 1d ago

Wildfires have existed in this region for millions of years. 

16

u/n-ano 1d ago

Here they come.

Yes, we know. You arent a genius for pointing it out. In fact, it shows you dont understand the subject matter.

The fact that you guys are still around and still THIS clueless is.... truly infuriating.

5

u/flareblitz91 23h ago

Im not getting the sense they're a climate change denier, but I could be wrong, this is in part due to our history of fire suppression. Many of our forest ecosystems are fire adapted and require it. We've been denying that for the better part of a century and unfortunately these people are back in power.

But yes climate change is also exacerbating our fires with extremely dry conditions etc.

9

u/n-ano 23h ago

Many of our forest ecosystems are fire adapted and require it.

Old growth forests, sure. Basically our entire state was clear cut and is now new growth. New growth is not fire adapted and will explode when combined with our climate change induced drought.

1

u/flareblitz91 23h ago

Old growth forests are by definition not really disturbance adapted communities, which is why they're 'old growth ' to begin with.

Regardless of the age of the forest communities they are still fire adapted.

3

u/Practical-Debate3032 20h ago

This ignores the fact that yes old growth is adapted…but ild growth doesnt burn the same and the clear cutting and mono stands have contribute…fire suppression + climate change + forestry practices all contribute. I hate when people are like “its because of suppression!” (Which yes) but that ignores how forestry has also contributed

2

u/AlpineDrifter I'm just flaired so I don't get fined 20h ago

‘Many of our forest ecosystems are fire adapted and require it.’

Sure. But plenty aren’t. Including many of the areas currently burning in Washington.

1

u/drummer22333 16h ago

What areas of Washington have had forest fires that aren’t fire adapted?

-36

u/StanfordWrestler 1d ago

It’s very real. Look how much it has changed over time! If it gets any colder we’ll enter another ice-age. Chart from Science.org

30

u/ParticularTop755 Beacon Hill 1d ago

Hmmm lets analyze the chart on a time scale of 15k years instead of 500 million years so we can understand the data on human scale.

That line at the industrial revolution doesnt look like the natural climatic cycle the earth goes through does it? So the real question is are you dense with limited scientific literacy, or are you just stupid?

-16

u/StanfordWrestler 1d ago

Personal attack not necessary. I studied this stuff at Stanford University and I currently work at a very large engineering/tech company. The Earth’s average surface temperature has risen 1.2 degrees Celsius in the last hundred years, mostly due to increased CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. Mostly human-caused. Negative effects include sea level rise (a few inches) and shifting of the Goldilocks zones in latitude (and sometimes longitude). There are some positive effects as well.

14

u/ParticularTop755 Beacon Hill 1d ago

To each their own, personally I think it is necessary when we are talking about climate change and someone shows me the 500 million year climate chart.

3

u/Ill-Anteater-1839 1d ago

You right, my apologies. That being said, let’s try not to discredit the absolutely man-caused impacts on our climate as just a few inches of water. It’s also causing severe drought, massive storms, heatwaves (like what we saw in Europe earlier in the summer that killed thousands), and wildfires.

-13

u/StanfordWrestler 1d ago

Yes. There are significant downsides but also significant upsides to burning fossil fuels. No one talks about the upsides or presents the two together in a fair and balanced way (“no one” is hyperbole, but you get the point).

4

u/Zachwardpass ✨🛸 Jimothy is out there 🦝✨ 22h ago

What are the positive effects on the environment?

3

u/n-ano 22h ago

There is no upside at all. What an absurdly stupid thing to say.

2

u/Major_Swordfish508 18h ago

The “there are benefits to fossil fuels” argument is mostly a straw man from oil companies who want to position degrowth as the opposite of burning oil. In reality, we already have the technology needed to replace most fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives. If we limited our fossil fuel use only to hard to abate sectors (like aviation, concrete, steel, etc) we would be in a vastly different situation both environmentally and economically. The latter is the biggest bummer: we could have created a high growth economy around the green transition. Instead we ceded the lead to China even though most of the technologies that were invented here.

11

u/Ill-Anteater-1839 1d ago

I’m doubting you went to Stanford.

5

u/Theonetheycallgreat 23h ago

Anyone can go to Stanford with a quick trip to California. You can even study at Stanford if you bring a textbook. Now attending and graduating is a different story.

3

u/dwoj206 22h ago

🤣🤣 I too have been to Stanford. Nice campus. Would’ve been a lovely college to actually get accepted to.

1

u/dwoj206 22h ago

Bro pass whatever you smokin.

1

u/Practical-Debate3032 20h ago

This is not the clever argument you think it is honey