Tag: Super Facts

Everything is in Motion

Super fact 131 : There is no absolute reference point. All motion is relative. Since everything is in motion compared to something else, that means that everything is in motion. In addition, all material objects consist of particles that are in motion, and all objects with mass move through time.

A photo of planet Earth from space.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I previously made a post on this topic called “Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness”. For a Stream of Consciousness post you are supposed to write whatever comes to mind without editing, except for typos. Stream of Consciousness is a fun concept. However, it is not fit for a super fact post because a super fact post requires fact checking and linking to reputable sources and it needs to be well organized and well explained, and all that is editing. After writing Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness I realized that “Everything is in Motion” is a super fact. It is an important observation and a fact that is far from obvious. With this post I am rewriting “Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness” into a super-fact I call “Everything is in Motion”.

All Motion is Relative

All motion is relative and everything moves in comparison to something else. You may be sitting in your chair completely still thinking that you are not moving but you are. Earth rotates around its axis at 1,040 miles per hour at the equator, and at 733 miles per hour at latitude 45 degrees. Latitude 45 degrees goes through New York and other northern States, as well as Europe. Sitting at the geographic north Pole won’t help you either because Earth is also wobbling and it is rotating around the sun at roughly 67,000 miles per hour or 107,000 kilometers per hour.

Picture shows a man and his dog sitting in front of a computer. Earth and the sun are in the background.
Man thinking he is sitting still drawn with the help of ChatGPT

The picture below shows Earth’s three main orbital cycles. I used this picture in another context for super-fact #122 “Orbital Cycles are not the Cause of the current Global Warming”. In that context I wanted to point out that Earth’s orbital cycles are too slow (100,000 years, 41,000 years, and 26,000 years) to explain the sudden rapid rise in global temperatures that we are witnessing now. The orbital cycles are also currently slowly cooling Earth, not warming it. However, in this context I am using the picture for a different purpose, and that is to point out that even if you sit at the north pole (or anywhere else on Earth) you will be moving.

Three illustrated orbital cycles. On the left orbital eccentricity, in the middle is the axial tilt and on the right axial precession.
Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.

In addition, the sun is rotating around the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way at 514,000 to 560,000 miles per hour or 792,000 to 828,000 kilometer per hour, and our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other at the speed of 110 kilometers per second, which is 396,000 kilometers per hour, or 246,000 miles per hour. Whether it is the Andromeda galaxy that is approaching us or our galaxy that is approaching the Andromeda galaxy is just a point of view. We are also moving at millions and billions of miles of hour compared to some other galaxies.

Photo of the Andromeda Galaxy
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

You are also Moving Through Time

As mentioned, motion is not absolute. It is always relative to something else. The universe has no center, no ether to compare with, there is no absolute reference point. It is not possible to declare anything as truly standing still. Understanding this is the first step towards understanding the theories of relativity. According to the theories of relativity the speed of light, or the speed of light in vacuum if you will, is a universal constant c = 299,792,458. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their speed and the direction in which they are going. In other words, you are moving at the speed of c = 299,792,458 compared to all light.

A spaceship on the right is shooting out a laser beam towards the left. Alongside the laser beam are four rockets trying to catch up with the light beam.
Four rockets, A, B, C, and D, are traveling along a light (laser) beam. No matter how fast they travel along the light beam, the light beam will always travel c = 299,792,458 meters per second faster than they do. I generated this picture with the help of ChatGPT.

In addition, c = 299,792,458 is not a speed in a regular sense, but a conversion factor between space and time. All particles/objects without mass (light particles called photons, gluons and gravity waves) must always travel at this speed, whilst all objects that have mass can only travel slower than c = 299,792,458 (compared to other objects with mass).

The E = mc2 formula
Mass is energy and vice versa, a direct result of the way time and space are related. Stock Photo ID: 2163111377 by Aree_S

You could say that compared to the reference frame of my choosing, which happens to be the chair I am sitting in, I am sitting still. I am not sure that would be fair but according to the theories of relativity you are also moving through time at the speed of c = 299,792,458. Well, that is assuming you have mass. For mass-less particles, like photons, time does not exist. Anyway, the fact that you are always moving kind sneaks in, no matter what you try.

An eye with photons streaming into it.
Billions of photons coming into the eye. For them time does not exist. Shutterstock asset id: 2629068895 by muratart.

You could raise a couple of objections to some of the claims in the last paragraphs. Very far away, beyond the limit of the visible Universe, galaxies can move away from us faster than the speed of light. However, they are not moving faster than the speed of light compared to the space where they are. What is going on is that space and time are stretching fast due to the expansion of the Universe.

Another objection might be that light can move slower than c = 299,792,458 through transparent materials such as glass and water. So, how can the claim that all massless particles must always move at exactly the speed of light in vacuum be true? The answer to that is that the light particles (photons) in those materials are being absorbed and re-emitted as new photons by the atoms. However, in between the atoms the photons move exactly at the speed c = 299,792,458, or more correctly at the time-space conversion factor c = 299,792,458.

From left to right, an atom absorbs a photon, which excites an electron that jumps into a higher orbit. Then it emits a photon and the electron falls back to the ground state again.
From ground state to excited state, absorption and emission of a photon in an atom. Shutterstock asset id: 2180385419 by rktz.

All Matter Consist of Molecules and Atoms that move

But wait, we are not done. Another fact is that everything is made of atoms and molecules that are never completely still. Temperature is a measure of their average kinetic energy (energy of motion). Even at the temperature absolute zero molecules and atoms are still moving. Yes, even at the lowest possible temperature they are still moving. It is impossible for atoms and molecules to stand completely still, just like children.

A vibrating protein molecule.
Thermal vibration of a segment of a protein’s alpha helix. Its amplitude increases with temperature. User:Greg_L on English wikipedia, uploaded to commons by User:Frokor, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons.

Other Super Facts Related to Relative Motion

To see the other Super Facts click here

Gulf of America is not Recognized Internationally

Super fact 130 : Gulf of America is not Recognized Internationally. The United Nations does not recognize the name “Gulf of America,” and continues to use the internationally established name Gulf of Mexico. The name “Gulf of America” applies only to the domestic agencies of the United States.

An aerial view of the Gulf of Mexico with the label “Whatchamacallit” in red. | Gulf of America is not Recognized Internationally
Aerial view of the gulf. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>, via Wikimedia Commons. I added the label “Whatchamacallit”.

The U.S. executive order renaming the body of water only applies within the United States and its federal agencies. International organizations and hydrographic groups, such as the International Hydrographic Organization, continue to officially recognize the historical name, the Gulf of Mexico. The UN (towards bottom) and global news organizations such as the AP will continue to use the name Gulf of Mexico.

Countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America, including Mexico, do not recognize the name change. English speaking countries such as the UK continues to call it the Gulf of Mexico. You can read more about the UK stance here. In non-English speaking countries such as my native country Sweden, the Gulf is called something that translates to the “Gulf of Mexico”. In Swedish, the Gulf is called “Mexikanska golfen”, and it is the name that appears in media, on maps, and typically in speech.

The Geographic Names Information System (a US federal database) and US federal agencies adopted the name Gulf of America, and Google maps and Apple maps adopted the  new name in the US. If you switch country, it may say Gulf of Mexico, or Gulf of Mexico or other local name followed by (Gulf of America), i.e., Gulf of America in parenthesis. MapQuest and OpenStreetMap chose not to adopt the name “Gulf of America” at all.

The six minutes and 43 seconds long video below by the mapping company World Maps Online explain why they did not adopt the name “Gulf of America”. In short, it is because they follow the UN naming conventions (at 5:40 in the video). Earlier in the video it is explained that the renaming only applies to the US continental shelf area, not the entire body of water, yes, even in the US the entire gulf was not renamed. The video also explains that naming conflicts are common and that there is no global authority that can resolve them and therefore the International Hydrographic Organization, the leading international map naming organization uses numbers instead of names. You are naturally free to listen to the whole video, but I am starting it 5 minutes in.

I have become aware that many Americans now incorrectly believe that the new name Gulf of America is “official” everywhere and therefore they go around trying to correct people. It is an important fact that is widely misunderstood and therefore I consider it a super fact.

My Personal Encounter with the Gulf of Mexico vs Gulf of America Controversy

I write beer reviews in various places, and I administer several Facebook beer review groups. When I said I was vacationing by the Gulf of Mexico in one of the Facebook beer groups that I administrate, two guys I have never seen posting anything in the group demanded that I change Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. I explained that this beer group is international. There are people from Germany, Sweden, France, Mexico, Canada, China, as well as US, posting in the group, so using a more internationally recognized name is just practical. I was not trying to make a point, which was true.

However, I can add that the name Gulf of America does not seem to be very popular even in the US. A February 2025 poll by Marquette University found that, among 1,018 respondents nationwide, 71% opposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico and only 29% supported the name change. So, the people who lecture others about using Gulf of America instead of Gulf of Mexico should maybe reconsider.

Origins of the name Gulf of Mexico

The name “Gulf of Mexico” is derived from the ethnonym Mexica referring to the Nahuatl-speaking people of the Valley of Mexico also known as the Aztecs. The name “Gulf of Mexico” has been in use since the 1550s and is internationally recognized.

Lake Ontario versus Lake America

A similar situation exists with Lake Ontario. A US executive order has been issued to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America. However, this is not internationally recognized. As mentioned, a country can rename an international body of water for its own domestic agencies, but that change has no binding legal effect on other nations or international bodies.

As with the Gulf of Mexico the old and internationally used name “Lake Ontario” is derived from indigenous languages. The name Ontario is likely derived from the Iroquoian word Kaniatarí:io or Oniatarí:io meaning “lake of shining waters” or “beautiful lake”. It has been in use since at least 1641.

This is a map of the five great lakes. I added the name “Lake Whatchamacallit” in red with a red arrow to indicate which of the lakes I am referring to.
Lake Ontario is now called Lake America in the US. This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons from this Wikipedia location. I updated it by adding Lake Whatchamacallit.

I can add that our President has also issued an executive order changing the name Denali (also indigenous name) to Mount McKinley. However, this is in Alaska, which is US sovereign territory and a bit different. He can do that. Another situation exists with the proposed renaming of New Mexico to New America. New Mexico happens to be written into the New Mexico constitution, making an official name change beyond the President’s power. I can also add that Like the Gulf, the region historically known as Nuevo Mexico was named for the valley, not for the country or even the Spanish province of Mexico. Nuevo Mexico was probably named circa 1560 to 1580 and first appeared on maps in the early 1590s.

What About Renaming Canada Geese to Donald Ducks?

Finally, a little joke

Five Canada Geese by a lake. They have yellow hair on top of their heads.
Can Canada Geese be renamed to Donald Ducks? Asking for a President. I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.
To see the other Super Facts click here

The Strong Nuclear Force Increases with Distance

Super fact 129 : Most fundamental forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, become weaker as the distance between the objects with the charges increase, except for the strong nuclear force, which grows stronger, not weaker, when the distance between the quarks increases. The strong nuclear force is strange in other ways too. Unlike the electric force which has two forms of charges, positive and negative, the strong nuclear force has three forms of charge denoted red, blue, and green. It has actually six kinds of charges if you count anti-red, anti-blue, and anti-green. I can add that the strong nuclear force is the strongest fundamental force in nature.

As you may know, atoms consist of particles. Electrons surround the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus of the atom is in the middle of the atom, and it consists of protons and neutrons. Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charge. Neutrons do not have an electrical charge. Electrons are so called elementary particles. They are not composed of other particles. Protons and Neutrons, on the other hand, are not elementary particles. They are composite particles consisting of quarks, gluons and quark pairs called mesons.

Quarks have electric charges, just like an electron and a positron, which is why a proton has an electric charge, a positive electric charge. However, as mentioned, in addition quarks have something called color charge. Unlike electric charges, which come in two forms, negative and positive, they come in three forms red, green and blue. In addition, there are also anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue charges, making it six forms of charges. I should say that the color charges, red, green and blue, are not real colors. They are just names. Just like electric charges are associated with electric forces; color charges are associated with the nuclear strong force.

vector illustration of up and down quarks in proton and neutron on white background. The proton (left) is a red and blue up quark and a green down quark. The neutron is a red and green down quark and a blue up-quark. | The Strong Nuclear Force Increases with Distance
The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Both protons and neutrons have a net white charge. The yellow squiggly lines are gluons transporting color charge between the quarks. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.

If you take an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges you get something that is electrically neutral. If you take an equal amount of red, green and blue you get what is called white, or neutral. If you take an equal amount of red and anti-red you also get white. Any other mix gives you a net color charge. As mentioned, unlike, for example, gravity or electromagnetism, which get weaker as objects move apart, the strong force grows stronger as quarks are pulled apart and weaker when they are squeezed together. This strange feature is referred to as Asymptotic Freedom.

As you separate a quark further and further from another the attractive strong force grows stronger and stronger until it becomes super strong, and at about 10,000 Newtons, which is more than one hundred billion times stronger than the force between an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom it will finally quickly dimmish as if it was a rubber band that snapped. This event will create new particles and quarks, but not free quarks. 10,000 Newtons correspond to a weight of 2,200 pounds, like a small car. However, remember that we are talking about objects that are a trillion times smaller (in diameter) than one millimeter.

Not only is the nuclear strong force increasing with distance until it snaps, which is kind of strange, but by the time it snaps the force is shockingly gigantic for such a small particle. Therefore, this is a fact that is mind-blowing and kind of important to our understanding of the Universe and therefore I think it is a super-fact. With these kinds of forces inside the atomic nucleus no wonder we can blow up large cities using small amounts of the right matter.

The Other Fundamental Forces Become Weaker with Distance

As mentioned, the other fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force get weaker as objects move apart. You may say what about friction, pressure, pulling a rope, and attraction between atoms in a molecule? Well, they are not fundamental forces and composed of electromagnetic forces at the bottom. Also, electric and magnetic forces are combined into electromagnetism because they are fundamentally the same thing.

Gravity gets Weaker as Masses Move Apart

The force of gravity gets weaker as masses such as planet Earth, the moon, and the sun are separated further. Newtons law of gravity states that every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

The picture shows the formula of Newtons law of gravity and an illustration of two objects being attracted to each other.
This diagram describes the mechanisms of Newton’s law of universal gravitation; A point mass m1 attracts another point mass m2 by a force F2 pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between the point masses. Dennis Nilsson, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Gravity force field lines spreading out around Earth. | The Strong Nuclear Force Increases with Distance
The force field lines demonstrate how gravity gets weaker as the gravitational field spreads out in space. I generated this picture using ChatGPT.
The picture depicts an Earth bending spacetime around it.
Even if you use the more modern model of gravity, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, you can see how the curvature of space becomes less further away from Earth. I generated this picture using ChatGPT.

This does not happen with the strong nuclear force.

The Electromagnetic Force gets Weaker as Objects Move Apart

The electric force gets weaker as the charges are separated further. Coulombs law is similar to Newtons law of gravity. The force between them is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

The picture shows the formula of Coulombs law which has the same form as Newton’s law of gravity plus an illustration of a positive and negative charge being attracted to each other and two positively charged particles repulsing each other.
The magnitude of the electrostatic force F between two point charges q1 and q2 is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Like charges repel each other, and unlike charges attract each other. File:CoulombsLaw.svg: User:Dna-Dennis / *derivative work RJB1, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Electric force field lines spread out around a positively and negatively charged particle.
The force field lines demonstrate how the electric force gets weaker as the electric field spreads out in space. I generated this picture using ChatGPT.
The picture shows magnetic force field lines spreading out around a magnetic dipole. They are spreading farther apart further away. | The Strong Nuclear Force Increases with Distance
Same thing with a magnetic dipole. The field lines are spreading out in space so the magnetic force (field) become weaker further away from the dipole. I generated this picture using ChatGPT.

Again, this does not happen with the strong nuclear force. It is different. The strong nuclear force is strange and very strong.

What is a Quark?

You can learn more about Quarks and the strong force by watching this 10 minute video below. The strong nuclear force is discussed towards the end of the video.

Other Physics Related Superfacts

To see the other Super Facts click here

Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming

Superfact 128: There are a lot of natural carbon emissions from the soil, rotting plants, animal and human respiration, and oceans, and a small amount from volcanoes. However, carbon is also absorbed by the oceans, and by plants via photosynthesis, etc., and this creates a balance that has existed for many thousands of years. This is called the carbon cycle. Despite the fact that the carbon emissions from our burning of fossil fuels are much smaller than some of the naturally occurring carbon emissions mentioned, they are what is behind the increase of carbon in the atmosphere because they are a new addition that disrupts the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle in the picture shows that the terrestrial biosphere is absorbing 120 Gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and emits 60 Gigatons to the atmosphere. It also adds 60 Gigatons of carbon to terrestrial soils. It also shows the Surface of the Ocean both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere and both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the deep ocean. There are additional flows in the picture. It is complex but stable cycle. | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming
The picture above was drawn by me and is an adaptation of Figure 3.1 on page 31 in the book “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”.

Regarding the picture above, the units are in Gigatons of carbon, i.e. the weight of the carbon atom. To get the numbers in Gigatons of carbon dioxide multiply all numbers by 3.67. The numbers in yellow inside the blocks correspond to how much carbon is stored in the system. The numbers without units in the grey arrows correspond to the number of Gigatons of carbon per year. I can add that Lawrence M. Krauss is not a climate scientist but a prominent theoretical physicist focusing on cosmology and quantum physics. However, he took a deep dive into the physics of climate change.

This picture is the same as above with the addition of our recent carbon emissions at 10 Gigaton. Oceans and other systems are absorbing some of it resulting in a net increase of 5 Gigaton per year.
This is the same picture as above, but I added the contribution from our recent additional carbon emissions such as the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. This is depicted at far right in yellow. Since this is not part of the original carbon cycle the amount of carbon in the atmosphere grew from 600 Gigatons (pre-industrial) to 900 Gigatons.

As you can see in the picture above the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere was 600 Gigaton originally and now we have increased it to 900 Gigaton. We are adding 10 Gigatons of carbon from our emissions, chiefly from burning fossil fuels, which correspond to 37 Gigatons of carbon dioxide. About half of this is absorbed by the ocean and other systems, resulting in a net addition of 5 Gigatons per year. The carbon dioxide added and stored in the atmosphere will be there for hundreds or thousands of years.

The existence of the carbon cycle and how it explains what is going on is an important fact that is widely misunderstood and therefore a surprising fact. You quite often see or hear claims such as “animal and human respiration emit a lot more carbon dioxide than our burning of fossil fuels, and therefore human caused global warming is BS”. The first part of that sentence is true, but the rest ignores the carbon cycle and the balance that has existed for many thousands of years. Therefore, this is a super fact.

The diagram shows how carbon is emitted and absorbed between the various elements in nature and our planet. It shows animals, plants, the soil, and also emissions from factories. The text says “The Carbon Cycle is important because it helps keep the right amount of carbon in the air, water, and soil. Too much carbon in the air can cause problems for our Earth and its climate.” | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming
This illustration of  the Carbon Cycle is simplified but artistic. Shutterstock asset id: 2271978649 by GraphicsRF.com

More on the Carbon Cycle

This picture is the same as the one above where I included our recent emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Same as the picture above but notice the flows depicted by the arrows and the total amounts stored in each system.

The carbon cycle describes the process in which carbon atoms continually travel from the atmosphere to the Earth and then back into the atmosphere. In the picture above you can see that the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere, and the soil, as well as deep Earth reservoirs and Marine Carbonate Sediments are all absorbing and emitting carbon (dioxide). For example, the terrestrial biosphere absorbs 120 Gigatons of carbon per year, chiefly through photosynthesis, and emits 60 Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, via for example, animal / microbial / human respiration, rotting plants, and it adds another 60 Gigatons of carbon to terrestrial soils. 120 Gigatons of carbon correspond to 440 Gigatons of carbon dioxide.

This is a fairly detailed picture of the carbon cycle from wikipedia. | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming
Carbon cycle schematic showing the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans in billions of tons (gigatons) per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions, and white are stored carbon. The effects of the slow (or deep) carbon cycle, such as volcanic and tectonic activity are not included. Diagram adapted from U.S. DOE, Biological and Environmental Research Information System., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The carbon cycle was relatively stable until we started burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Our burning of fossil fuels emits 10 Gigatons of carbon (37 Gigatons of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. About 30% of this carbon is absorbed by the oceans. This slows the warming but causes ocean acidification, which is another dangerous problem. In total 50% of the carbon emissions are absorbed by oceans, the soil, the biosphere, etc., according to “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”. This is why I wrote Net 5 Gigatons per year in the picture above. You can read more about the Carbon Cycle here and here.

Another thing to pay attention to in the diagrams above is that not only are volcanoes part of the carbon cycle, but their contribution to carbon emissions is tiny compared to our emissions, which contradicts the many false claims you see on social media. You can read about that in my post “Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of carbon compared to humans”.

Conclusion

Many of our Planet’s systems (oceans, biosphere, terrestrial soil, atmosphere, etc.) emit (and absorb) more carbon dioxide than our burning of fossil fuels does. However, the fact that they are part of the long existing carbon cycle makes them irrelevant to the rapid and sudden global warming phenomenon that we are witnessing. The recent rapid Global Warming is happening, and it is caused by us, chiefly because of our burning of fossil fuels. I am illustrating this using the two bathtub pictures below.

The picture shows a glass bathtub half filled with water. There are a faucet and a drain with the same flow keeping the water level the same.
The stream of water from the faucet is the same as the stream from the drain keeping the water level steady. The bathtub is half full and stays half full. I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.
The picture shows a glass bathtub half filled with water. There are a faucet and a drain with the same flow keeping the water level the same. | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming
The stream of water from the faucet is faster than the stream from the drain so the water level increases. The additional amount from the faucet represents the carbon emissions we added. The bathtub is now 2/3 up and rising. I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

Climate change worsens wildfires Globally and Human land-Use Changes Reduces them

Superfact 126: Climate change worsens wildfires in North America, especially in the western U.S. and Canada, as well as in southern and western Europe, the Arctic and Siberia, Australia, and parts of South America and central Africa. That is because these areas face longer dry spells and rising temperatures due to climate change. However, changes in human land-use, such as farming expansion, and landscape fragmentation in Northern Africa and south Asia have caused the total burned area to decline.

Esther’s writing prompt: August 19th : Fire

Click here or here  to join in.

Forest burning wildly. The entire picture is just intense fire. | Climate change worsens wildfires Globally and Human land-Use Changes Reduces them
Underwood, WAUSA – July 2, 2023: Tunnel 5 Fire in Columbia River Gorge Shutterstock asset id: 2327439537 by Christian Roberts-Olsen

Human-caused global warming is causing longer dry spells and rising temperatures in many areas. This results in larger and more intense wildfires despite improved forest management. This has globally expanded the area burned by 16% (2003 to 2019)

As mentioned, climate change worsened wildfires in North America, especially in the western U.S. and Canada, as well as in southern and western Europe, the Arctic and Siberia, Australia, and parts of South America and central Africa. However, changes in population distribution, land use, forest fragmentation and the conversion of land for urban development and agriculture in particularly south Asia and North Africa have suppressed wildfires, driving down global burned area. The net effect is estimated to be a reduction of the burned area by 5%. You can read more here, or here, or here, or here.

The photo shows tree trunks on fire and professional firefighters extinguishing a large, high-priority part of a forest fire.
Highly skilled hotshot firemen crew working in a challenging remote area with flames reaching the treetops. Shutter stock asset id: 2258645599 by Gorodenkoff

This is an important fact that is also paradoxical. On the one hand climate change / global warming is worsening wildfires. On the other hand, the size of the total area burned by wildfires has declined because of the change of human land use. Those who knew that wildfires are getting worse due to climate change are likely surprised to hear that total area burned by wildfires has declined. Those who use the fact that the total area burned by wildfires has declined to deny that global warming is worsening wildfires might be surprised to learn that they are wrong.

Some Clarification on Wildfires

  • Wildfires are not started by climate change or poor forest management. They are started by lighting, falling powerlines, campfires that are not properly put out, and sometimes by arson. That doesn’t mean that climate change and poor forest management does not increase the risk and extent of wildfires.
  • Research organizations such as NOAA recognize that wildfire is a natural part of the western US ecosystem. However, climate change is significantly exacerbating the problem by creating conditions more conducive to intense and widespread wildfires.
  • Suppression of fire in certain ecosystems may in fact increase the likelihood that a wildfire will occur.
  • There are wildfires started intentionally to prevent future wildfires.
  • In the past, forests evolved with frequent, low-intensity fires that helped clear out underbrush. They can have ecological benefits. Therefore, the number of wildfires may not have increased over the last 100 years.
  • Local conditions and forest management have evolved through time complicating the wildfire statistics around the world.
  • In the past reporting was not always consistent.

Climate change worsens wildfires in the US

Climate change, including increased heat, extended drought, and a thirsty atmosphere, has been a key driver in increasing the risk and extent of wildfires in the United States, particularly the western United States during the last two decades. The number of Wildfire acres burned in the United States has significantly increased even though the number of wildfires has not. Another important factor is forest management.

The graph consists of blue bars corresponding to a year starting in 1983 with the last bar being 2020. The bars show the number of million acres burned per year in the US. In 1983 and 1984 the bars show between 1 and 2 million acres burned. The following three years more than 2 million acres were burned. From 2015 to 2020 the number of acres burned annually is between 5 and 10 million acres. | Climate change worsens wildfires Globally and Human land-Use Changes Reduces them
Wildfire acres burned in the United States. Number of acres of wildfire burned in a given year in the United States. This is shown from 1983 onwards, when consistent reporting began. Data source : National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). Presented by OurWorldinData/natural disasters.

You can read more about the increased wildfires in the United States in this superfactful post.

Other super facts related to global warming

My Other Responses to Esther’s Prompts

To see the other Super Facts click here