We may be underestimating the true carbon cost of northern wildfires

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://news.berkeley.edu/2026/02/27/we-may-be-underestimating-the-true-carbon-cost-of-northern-wildfires/

A study led by a UC Berkeley researcher reconstructed emissions from Swedish wildfires and found that current climate estimates are failing to fully account for carbon released from smoldering organic soils.

By Kara Manke

February 27, 2026

Wildfires in the northern boreal forests of Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia and Russia may be more damaging to the climate than previously thought, a new UC Berkeley-led study suggests.

That’s because these fires don’t just burn through trees; they can also penetrate deep into the carbon-rich layers of soil underneath many boreal forests, releasing carbon that has been accumulating for hundreds or even thousands of years. These carbon-rich soils, also known as peat, are primarily found in the far north, where the cold, wet climate prevents vegetation from fully decomposing and leads to a buildup of partially decayed organic matter over time.

The study found that major models of wildfire carbon emissions — which are largely based on data from fires at lower latitudes, and use satellite images of visible flames to guide their estimates — are not properly accounting for the impact of fire on these underground carbon stores.

“Many of the fires that matter most for the climate don’t look dramatic from space,” said study lead author Johan Eckdahl, a postdoctoral scholar in Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. “Peatlands and organic soils can smolder for weeks to years, releasing enormous amounts of ancient carbon.”

…

Johan A. Eckdahl et al. ,Reassessing boreal wildfire drivers enables high-resolution mapping of emissions for climate adaptation.Sci. Adv.12,eadw5226(2026).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adw5226

[NNadir]

1. Don't worry, be happy.

Fire based clear cutting makes plenty of room for roads to access industrial parks for wind turbines and solar cells.

Wilderness?

Who needs wilderness when we can make industrial parks for so called "renewable energy?"

Since so called "renewable energy" has done nothing, absolutely zero, to prevent the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, we just have to live with it. If it had done something with its trillions of dollars of costs, the forests wouldn't be burning, but they are. We might as well put these vast sums of hectares to use.

I hear all the time around here, that so called "renewable energy" is "green," but maybe we should start calling it black, like soot; maybe that would be more appropriate since the "renewables will save us" associated antinukism has left the planet in flames.

Am I right?

Have a nice day.