Talk:Firestorm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nagasaki

I was only aware of a firestorm in Hiroshima. Although very large fires erupted in Nagasaki I do not believe they were sufficient to create a firestorm Pietas

True, rainy wheather prevented firestorm. Thus far fewer dead by the bomb. Seniorsag 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

True there was no firestorm at Nagasaki, but your claimed rainy weather is not the reason why there was a lack of a Firestorm at Nagasaki. Please read: Nagasaki probably did not furnish sufficient fuel for the development of a fire storm as compared to the many buildings on the flat terrain at Hiroshima. - 1977 Glasstone & Dolan pg 304. Boundarylayer (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Firetornado vs. Firestorm

Why does the article suddenly change the terminology used? If these are slightly different phenomena then the differences should be explained. If they are the same then the article should be made consistent.Victah 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a recent change by an anon. I reverted it. Rmhermen 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Great Fire of london was a firestorm.JohnC (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate

I would like to see more sourcing on to what extent and in what instances firestorms were/are deliberate effects of aerial bombardment, because this might not be necessarily true in every case that resulted in a firestorm. Could anyone get a cite on this issue? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article never says to what extent they are deliberate effects. I think the describtion is clear enough to show that it has been deliberate, and the technique was never used before World War II. How do you show extent in willful intent? Maybe they kind of felt bad about it, but decided to use a tactic that might kill thousands of people anyway? Maybe they firebombed an urban area to hit a military instalation or a radio tower. --67.172.10.82 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When you drop 650'000 fire-bombs like over dresden, of course there will be a firestorm. So it is deliberate. Also, it was not to destroy a military objective, but to break the german will to fight. Ketsa 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fire of London death toll

I'm fairly sure the death toll was a suprisingly low 6. It's one of those questions which people get wrong in quizes a lot, expecting 10,000 or similar high figures. The fire initially spread so slowly that most people just got out of the way and let the place burn, not to mention large numbers of people had left the city or died due to the Black Death the previous year. I've not added it into the main page, but thought someone might have heard similar. AlphaNumeric 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a firestorm, so should be removed entirely from the article.JohnC (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hancock, Michigan

There was a firestorm there during its conflagration. If further info can be obtained it might be included in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco

The fire in San Francisco lasted for more than one day and burned slowly,, there were no reports of high winds, thus no firestorm. Seniorsag 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guernica

I just read about the bombing of Guernica. In the paragraph Outcome it is said that the bombings had caused a firestorm. Maybe Guernica should be added to the list. Vinnivince 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

what does this mean?

"its also recidnosed with fire placement directed inward." What word is that supposed to be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.45.138 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

lower size limit

...a natural phenomenon, created during some of the largest bushfires...

OK. Sounds like a critical mass must be reached for full effects, however please do mention how small a firestorm can be to still be called a firestorm. Jidanni 01:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firestorms in cities

The list provided needs to be examined carefully. Not all those cities listed suffered a firestorm for example the Germans started many large fires in Britain during World War II but they did not create a firestorm. Similarly the number of firestorms that the Allies created in Germany was not as large as is implied in this list for the same reasons, not all large fires are firestorms. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article gives 8 firestorms created by the Allies in German cities. I think it should give all and only the genuine firestorms and say so. Whether those criteria produce that particular list of 8 cases I don't know.Hertel47 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There were no firestorms in Britain during the Blitz. Coventry was not a firestorm, as noted in the article. So why are these included as examples of firestorms?JohnC (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How do the 2009 Victoria fires relate to firestorms in a city? Small villages more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.50.152 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Graphic

I think this article would benefit greatly from a graphic of some sort illustrating a firestorm. Does anyone know of a possible source for this? -Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Firestorm meaning

The meaning of the term 'Firestorm' in the bombing of the German cities of Hamburg, Dresden, etc. refers to a specific phenomenon that doesn't appear to be present in most of the other examples. In the two named cities the effect of the concentrated bombing, together with the prevailing weather conditions (a temperature inversion), caused a massive inrush of cold air at ground level, causing hurricane-force winds that picked people up off their feet and carried them towards the centre of the fires, as well as uprooting sizable trees. This inrush of air added to the oxygen available to the fires, increasing them further, until eventually there was no more combustible material to burn. There's a description of the process in Alexander Mckee's Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox [1] Ian Dunster (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Types of Firestorms

At the bottom of the "Firestorms in Wildfires," why does the list describing different types of firestorms include acidosis? What does heartburn have to do with wildfires or firestorms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andolirien (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflaguration

Err, Something seems wrong here. Conflagration redirects to Firestorm and the first sentance is "A firestorm is a conflagration which attains such intensity ..." 66.216.163.92 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Burden of Evidence

Per Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence, an appropriate in-line citations must be added to ensure verifiability. All statements (general knowledge or not) are likely to be removed. Thus the {{Unreferenced|date=October 2007}} tag since 2007.

I challenge the emission of flammable VOCs by plants as a defense mechanism against heat. Water has a tremendous heat capacity and heat of vaporization. Most VOCs do not. Additionally, it would be energetically unfavorable for a plant to manufacture a complex chemical compounds just to let it evaporate. I propose that an increased temperature merely boils off the VOCs, which indeed contributes to flammability but not as a method for plants to "protect themselves from the heat of fire." MrBell ^(talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more accurate to say that the compounds are there to protect against hot dry conditions generally, rather than fire in particular. Water is in short supply in these environments, plants need to have lower levels of transpiration to survive, or have some mechanism for storing water. This certainly isn't my specialist area, so I don't really knwo wehre to look for decent cites, but it certainly fits with everythign I've ever been told about this sort of plant. David Underdown (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on changing things around to help it flow better, but until I can find something to the contrary, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."[[2]] MrBell ^(talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement about transpiration because the real interest was around the flammability of volatile organics. Wikilinks explain the process better as do the three references, especially those from the Eucalyptus article. MrBell ^(talk) 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

Hi all. This article needs some work before it can be read by the average reader. I have a strong basic in the sciences, and still, the mechanism portion of this article remains completely beyond my grasp. Could someone with a proper grounding in the subject please rewrite the section, explaining scientific terms and providing more accessible content? Thanks. Shiningheart (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit confusing. However, I haven't been able to find any good refs from which to pull info. Any suggestions? MrBell ^(talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In wildfires

2003 Canberra Bushfires

Firestorms often appear in thalwegs or crests or on plateaus. Warning signs include:

• Decreased visibility;
• Decreased sound conduction;
• Breathing difficulties (firefighters do not use SCBA on wildfires);
• Roasting (pyrolysis) of the leaves by the radiated heat.

Many plants and trees secrete volatile resins and oils that serve a variety of purposes, such as hemp resins that protect the plant from drying out. However, increased temperatures cause an increase in the vapor pressure of these compounds. At 170 °C (338 °F), the rosemary plant emits 55 times more terpene than at 50 °C (122 °F). A temperature of 170 °C is considered a critical temperature, at which the emission of volatile compounds can lead to an explosive mix with the air and thus to a flashover. Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable and trees are known to explode. In cases of drought and humidity less than 30%, chances of ignition are even greater. Additionally, fires often contain only partially burned pyrolysis gases, which can mix with the plant oils, creating an even more explosive mixture.

The topography has a complex influence. A closed relief, such as a small valley or a dry river, concentrates the heat and thus the emission of VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), especially for rosemary, rockrose or Aleppo Pine. Contrarily, the kermes oak emits more VOC on an open relief such as plain or plateau.

Other factors that influence the occurrence of a firestorm are the natural heat, especially above 35 °C in the shadow, a humidity less than 30% and no strong wind. These conditions are met in Mediterranean climates.

The firestorms can be classified in several types:

• Thermal bubble: at the bottom of a small valley rich in combustible materials (plants), the combustible gas forms a bubble that cannot mix with the air because its temperature is too high; this bubble moves randomly, pushed by the wind.
• Fire carpet: in a deep and opened small valley, the whole valley catches fire.
• Confinement by a layer of cold air: a strong and cold wind prevents the pyrolysis gas from rising, which leads to the explosive situation.
• Pyrolysis of the opposite slope: the fire progresses down a slope, but the radiated heat pyrolyses the plants on the facing slope, which catches fire seemingly spontaneously.
• Bottom of a small valley: the gases accumulate in the bed of a dry river; when the fire comes, it completes the fire triangle and the bottom of the valley catches fire.

None of this section seems to talk about firestorms but only about a couple particular aspects of wildfires in general. Rmhermen (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Firestorms in cities (again)

See above #Firestorms in cities

I have started to make a dent on this POV list of firestorms. I have only left two bombed European cities where there is a reliable source that says that they suffered from a firestorm and I have asked for sources for the other listed cases.

I suspect though like the term genocide, popular publications will use the term firestorm when they really mean just a large fire, and not one that meets the requirements of Firestorm#Mechanism. So it may be necessary to add a note column to the table listing different opinions on whether a particular large fire was a firestorm or not. -- PBS (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Minimum firestorm requirements

As there have been many attempts to add incidents of conflagrations to this firestorm article, I thought I'd add a definition of a firestorm from The effects of Nuclear Weapons 2nd ed. 1977.

The minimum requirements for a firestorm to develop in a city, are considered by some authorities to be the following:

(1)At least 8 pounds of combustibles per square foot of fire area,

(2) At least half of the structures in the area on fire simultaneously,

(3) A wind of less than 8 miles per hour at the time, and

(4) A minimum burning area of about half a square mile.

This is regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_7.pdf#zoom=100 The effects of Nuclear Weapons, thermal effects chapter pg 24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I understand you meant page 24 of the PDF file: the 4 points are a quote from Section "MASS FIRES" paragraph 7.58, on pages 229 and 300 of the document, or to fully cite it:

• Glasstone, Samuel; Dolan, Philip J., eds. (1977), ""Chapter VII — Thermal Radiation and Its Effects", The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Third ed.), United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration, pp. 229, 200, § "Mass Fires" ¶ 7.58 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

It seems that this information was word for word copied into:

• American National Fire Protection Association (2005), Scawthorn, Charles; Eidinger, John M.; Schiff, Anshel J. (eds.), Fire Following Earthquake, Issue 26 of Monograph (American Society of Civil Engineers. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering), American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (illustrated ed.), ASCE Publications, p. 68, ISBN 9780784407394

Which I used to reformat the quote and it cites the above "Glasstone and Doland, 1977"

I read the pages from 300 to 304 and could not find a passage that specifically supports "This is regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon" as 7.64 says "it was originally concluded that such wood had actually been ignited by thermal radiation and that the flames were subsequently extinguished by blast. But it now seems more probable that, apart from some exceptional in-stances, there was no actual ignition of the wood. ... 7.65 It is not known to what extent thermal radiation contributed to the initiation of fires in the nuclear bombings in Japan ...". It is probably best to go with "7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."

--PBS (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What have you done? you messed up the references altogether, and done so in a really sloppy manner. Who is Glasstone and Doland? The author's name is Dolan. Why did you muck up the references and rewrite the material to suit your own POV?

And as for the last point, yes I agree it would be better to go for something like a direct quote as it may cause confusion amongst readers(as evidenced by you), you even went to the extent of reverting what the source essentially says, so yes instead of my succinct Regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon

We should go for the direct quote, that says the same thing - "7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."

But include the sources I REFERENCED, and that you recently found for yourself! so that readers can go direct to GLASSTONE & DOLAN'S book . As it stands right now you have the author's name listed incorrectly and readers can't actually see the referenced material, instead they'd have to buy that 2005 book that copied direct from Glasstone and Dolan's seminal work.

So yes, include the below reference and get rid of the 2005 book as the main reference that copied it, as it is not freely available for readers to read, Glasstone & Dolan's book is more accessible.

• Glasstone, Samuel; Dolan, Philip J., eds. (1977), ""Chapter VII — Thermal Radiation and Its Effects", The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Third ed.), United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration, pp. 229, 200, § "Mass Fires" ¶ 7.58 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Lastly, I was unaware that a 2005 book had copied the 1977 book, how did you find that out?

You seem to have discovered your error and yet not self corrected it? That's pretty bizarre behaviour.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

had not noticed the "d" left on the end of "Dolan" in the text, if I had I would have removed it. My major concern in the rewrite was to fix the copyright violation. I don't mind which book we cite but the text if copied must be within an acceptable quotation style unless it can be show to be a US Government PD source (which it may well be). I found the text by searching for in in Google books, a readable version G&D's book does not seem to be part of that canon. Readers do not have to buy the 2005 book as a convince link is provided in the full reference p. 68.

I removed the last sentence because I do not think it is a fair summary of the source. I am happy either to be persuaded that it is, or to put in a different summary or use the quote from ¶ 7.61. -- PBS (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning the point they make in "7.59 Conflagrations, as distinct from fire storms, have moving fire fronts which can be driven by the ambient wind. ... Conflagrations can develop from a single ignition, whereas fire storms have been observed only where large numbers of fires are burning simultaneously over a relatively large area." -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've returned!

Section -¶ 7.61 is important to include, as many people have the prejudice that Nuclear explosions would reliable ignite a forest or city, therefore it's worth including to dispell that notion. I'm also opposed to adding the section ¶7.59. As the article already goes into quite a lot of detail explaing the difference between a firestorm and a conventional conflagration. If you do wish to add ¶7.59 then it should be added near the start of the article were it explains the difference between the two phenomena immediately to readers.

Section -¶ 7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."

Not to nit pick, but why is the word Fire repeated in the current edit? The organization's name is NFPA. National Fire Protection Association. Not the Fire protection fire association.

Furthermore, and more importantly, where exactly in the source material does it explicitly say that the data was taken from WWII experience? I beleive the firestorm requirements are for firestorm's in general, including Forest fires.

Here I copied and pasted the section you edited below:

Taken from the article pages current edit as it stands:

The [American] National Fire Protection fire association stated in a 2005 report that there were only 3 major fire storms resulting from Allied conventional bombing campaigns during World War II: Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo.[10] They go on to quote Glasstone and Dolan:

based on World War II experience with mass fires resulting from air raids on Germany and Japan, the minimum requirements for a fire storm...

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for saying conventional was to sum up the proceeding paragraph from the National Fire Protection Association: "Europe and Pacific campaigns ...generalized high explosive ... multiple simultaneous explosions ... Germany two major fire storms ... Japan the only fire storm ...". The phrase "generalized high explosive" in my opinion can be summed up as "conventional". The quote from G&D starts "based on World War II experience with mass fires resulting from air raids on Germany and Japan,..."

If you see a mistakes in the text it would be helpful if you would correct them. I suggest that if you think it appropriate you add either add a summary or a quote from ¶ 7.61 -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Braunschweig burning after aerial firebombing attack in 1944.

I am curious why this picture is on the firestorm page?

Yes it is a pic of the effects of an aerial firebombing, but it isn't a picture of a firestorm.

Shouldn't the picture have further information stating so?

One can tell it most certainly isn't a firestorm, as individual fires are seen burning and not a single mass fire.

Furthermore the Bombing of Braunschweig in World War II page states a few times that a firestorm developed, probably after the picture was taken, but I've never read from a reliable source that an actual firestorm developed.

I could be wrong, the city certainly appears to have been built in a manner that was susceptible to firestorm, but like I've said, I have yet to stumble upon an actual reference supporting the statement that the city actually firestormed. Boundarylayer (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The picture was taken between 2:00 and 3:00, the firestorm reached its highest intensity around 6:30. According to Braunschweiger Zeitung (publisher): Die Bomben-Nacht. Der Luftkrieg vor 60 Jahren. Braunschweig 2004, there were all indicators for a firestorm (one single fire, strong inwards winds). So the picture does only show the beginning of a firestorm.--Beliar (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means friend then reference your German book in the article! Be bold!

86.44.239.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources, not in citation tags

Someone added a blogspots reference, which appears to be an opinion piece, blogspots are not WP:RS reliable sources and this one has little value as it does not have a list of references. http://unintentional-irony.blogspot.no/2007/08/firestorms.html

There is also the following authoritative looking reference, but upon reading the page, it doesn't appear to say that a firestorm may ignite material ahead, or in front, of the firestorm itself. http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee460/cjc/Thermal_Radiation_Damage.html

Even if it did, we know from Hiroshima that the firestorm didn't ignite the rest of the city, that is, the flammable buildings, and further afield forest, on the periphery of the firestorm did not burn.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Firestorm

This article should be cleaned up. Vedantdotcom 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a debate over the 5% of WWII fire bombing raids resulted in a firestorm reference

I understand why you emphasized it now, but the bombing of Kassel in World War II and Ube are regarded as Firestorms. Whether or not something is major or minor doesn't take away from it still being a firestorm. If it meets the 4 prerequistive conditions a fire needs to meet before becoming a firestorm (as referenced and defined by Glasstone & Dolan in 1977) then there is really no debate about The reference that 5% of fire-bombing raids in WWII developed into a firestorm. Waves of B-29s destroyed over half the total area of 66 urban centers, reducing 178 square miles to ashes http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org/2_manhattan.shtml

As we both know, Tokyo, Ube, and as I'll get to below, possibly Toyama firestormed. 3 cities out of 66 firestormed in Japan. That puts the percentage at ~5%. See Air raids on Japan.

& for German firebomb raids- http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ For further confirmation that a firestorm developed in Kassel and Dramstadt.

& more evidence that further firestorms occurred in WWII, that I didn't include - A firestorm may have developed in Toyama. A firestorm generated by B–29s at Toyama destroyed 99 percent of the city. http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg9.htm & another reference that states Toyama firestormed- Craven and Cate (1953), p. 66 Craven, Wesley; Cate, James (editors) (1953). The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki. The Army Air Forces in World War II. Volume V. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/index.html

However, There are a lot of fire bombing raids that developed mass fires but not true firestorms, the most likely reason is that these cities didn't have the fuel loading as specified by Glasstone and Dolan as being necessary to form an actual firestorm. This is corroborated by Waves of B-29s destroyed over half the total area of 66 urban centers, reducing 178 square miles to ashes http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org/2_manhattan.shtml

Pictures of the air raid on Osaka and Wuppertal show complete destruction of all combustible building material, however neither Osaka or Wuppertal, despite their destruction being near total, (and the same being observed in Nagasaki) no firestorm developed in either one, again despite their near total destruction.

You would be forgiven for thinking Osaka had a firestorm from the post firebombing pictures- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Osaka_after_the_1945_air_raid.JPG & http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ But from pictures alone you cannnot infer that there was a firestorm, because a mass fire may have equally caused the same destruction, but of course, over a longer period of time and burning much slower than an actual firestorm.

It is interesting to note that Wuppertal experienced such relative devastation and yet did not suffer a firestorm. A number of factors, similar to the lack of firestorm in the Berlin raids, played a role. Such factors as low building density and modern construction details... http://www.scribd.com/doc/49221078/18-Fire-in-WW-II# pg 88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the 5% it is not at all clear what is meant. To take one example the bombing of Hamburg in World War II. Hamburg had raids in size from one or two bombers on the night of 16/17 February 1942 up to 791 RAF aircraft on the first night of the Battle of Hamburg (24/25 July 1943). The total number of raids on Hamburg listed in the Wikipedia article (including the USAAF raids) is 93 (see Timeline). Which means that the firestorm in Hamburg (night of 27/28 July 1943) makes up less than 5% of the raids on Hamburg alone.

On the night of big bombing raids the RAF usually flew at least one other diversionary operation as well as their main raid so for example on the night of the bombing of Dresden 13/14 February February 1945 the RAF also sent 71 Mosquitos to Magdeburg, 16 to Bonn, 8 each to Misburg and Nuremberg and 6 to Dortmund. So does the number of 5% really mean 10% of main raids? We can't tell without a breakdown in the figures.

The bomb loads carried by the USAAF depended on the conditions they were likely to encounter over Germany. If the weather was bad then they carried a mixture of HE and incendiary similar to the RAF, but it the weather was good the flew with a higher mix of HE. In the case of the Dresden raid the mix was closer to the RAF levels. But this means that on days when the whether was clear over Germany the USAAF was not equipped to start firstorms.

The RAF also varied it mix towards the end of the war for example the last 1,000 bomber raid on Essen on 11 March 1945 was with HE only as there was nothing left to burn. Are those raids including in the 5%?

By the end of the war the RAF was far more efficient at area bombing than the USAAF. They would take a point in a city in the case of Dresden Ostragehege stadium and fan out each bomber allotted an angle and time of release after passing over the point. In contrast the USAAF area bombing was a haphazard effect of the inaccuracy of precision bombing, it is probably no coincidence that all the firestorms created in Germany were the work of the RAF.

So the reasons for firestorms in Germany during WWII was more than just weather conditions it also had to do with the tactics (See the Harris quote in the article) and the mix of bombs used by the three principle air forces.

Smilallary the USAAF tactics over Japan changed as the war continued. It was not until Curtis LeMay changed the type of attack from carried out by the USAAF from precision bombing to carpet bombing with a mix of HE and incendiaries that attempts were made to incinerate Japanese cities. So does one include the raids by the XX Bomber Command or just those of the XXI Bomber Command after LeMay took the decision to area bomb? Although you mention 5% of cities that is not the figure mentioned in the article, it is 5% of strategic (presumably) raids and that is a meaningless figure without qualifications of the type I have mentioned here.

-- PBS (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree PBS, the 5% figure appears dubious if you regard raids as every single bombing attempt, as you rigorously pointed out. However I do believe that the 5% figure includes only heavy bomb runs where the respective air forces attempted, and believed, that they had a high chance of seriously destroying a large area of the enemies city with incendiaries and GP bombs, regardless of the exact proportion of incendiary bombs, or exact tactics fielded.

As can be learned from the Strategic bombing during World War II and strategic bombing page on a definition and what exactly constitutes as strategic bombing - Among the controversial instances of strategic bombing (and it should be noted that there is still significant controversy over whether all of these events even constitute strategic bombing, as opposed to other forms, such as terror bombing or tactical bombing) are: Then a list of bombing events is presented.

you'll also find heavy use of the word large on the page too, to describe the number of bombers used and the number of bombs utilized in conventional strategic bombing in WWII. How big is large is really never expanded upon. I think this is fundamentally our problem, did the air forces at the time have a definition of strategic bombing, akin to:

'X number of planes dropping Y number of ordnance is required for a raid to be regarded as strategic bombing, everything below that is considered tactical bombing.'

As I included above - Waves of B-29s destroyed over half the total area of 66 urban centers, reducing 178 square miles to ashes http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org/2_manhattan.shtml

As we both know, Tokyo, Ube, and possibly Toyama firestormed from conventional bombing. 3 cities out of 66 firestormed in Japan. That puts the percentage at ~5%. See Air raids on Japan, and that supports the 5% figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been listening to "The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War" by Andrew Roberts (2011) at the start of Chapter 3, he defines a major raid as an attack that drops 100 tonnes or more of HE: "In all between the 7 December 1940 and the end of the first period of the Blitz on 16th of May 1941, 71 major attacks on London (that is attacks dropping more than 100 tonnes of HE), 8 each on Liverpool Birmingham and Plymouth, 6 on Bristol 5 on Glasgow 4 on Southampton 3 on Portsmouth and at least one on a further 8 cities". I do not know how common the definition of 100 tonnes of HE is, but it may be a usable lead to see if it is a standard (like the difference between an armed conflict and a war is for academic purposes 1,000 conflict related deaths in a year) [3]. -- PBS (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty neat PBS, and may indeed help, as we both expected a raid was definitely defined differently than a aerial sortie. Sadly however that definition only states 'raids' and not firebombing (incendiaries in the mix) raids. It must be said though, that partly influenced by your recent uncoverings, and what I've been reading,(and editted the article page to the effect that) Tokyo appears to not have Firestormed at all in WWII, therefore I'm beginning to hold suspicions of that '5% of raids' figure referenced in the article page.

As you and I are both becoming increasingly familiar, authors often liberally use the word 'firestorm' when in reality most times they're just describing a really big fire. I imagine that something similar to hearsay is responsible for many WWII fires being called 'firestorms'. Regrettably, this isn't a mere harmless exxageration, as these mass city fires become classified as 'Firestorms' in the popular conscience, which goes on to find its way into scholarly publications. Which then goes on to affect the thinking and conclusions of their work. As the old statistics motto goes, Garbage in, garbage out

By the way, do you recommend the book?

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone pointed out on the talk page of Football (word) that British tabloids frequently use the word "Soccer" in headlines because it scans better eg "Sensational soccer match" rather than "Sensational football match". See the comments by Donald Bloxham in the section Bombing of Dresden#Allegations that it was a war crime (and moral lable). There is a similar problem with the use of the word "genocide" it is used loosely because "Crime against humanity" although frequently the legal definition for many of the crimes described as genocide (no need to prove the perpetrators state of mind), it is not punchy as genocide, (and also has different subsections (see here)), but more importantly it is not anything like as graphic in the minds of most people, because of wide association of genocide with the images of the Holocaust. Because of its association with Dresden, I suspect that the use of "Firestorm", more often falls into a similar category as a moral/sensational label rather than a scientific/legal one. Contemporary words for the large fires generated by bombers in the war were "large conflagration" resulting in a "holocaust". However language usage changes -- Holocaust is now usually used as a proper noun for the Nazi genocide of the Jews and to use it in relation to aerial bombing tends to be limited to Nazi apologists.

The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War is an interesting book, as it emphasises the mistakes that Hitler made,[4] however although I have not read it, the reviews for the All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945 by Sir Max Hastings suggest that it is the best single volume account of the WWII to date.[5][6][7]. Having said that the statistics highlighted in the reviews of Hastings' book are also in Robert's.-- PBS (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Holocaust isn't exclusively a term used to describe Jewish murder, but includes the murder of non-Jews in concentration camps too, as the majority of those killed in concentration camps weren't Jews, with 6 million Jews perishing and 17 million humans in total. A comparable number of Soviet POWs suffered the same fate as those 6 million Jews.

Also I'm not entirely sure what point you were making between newspapers using the word Firestorm over the more accurate conflagration, in regard to Soccer and football.

As the word 'Soccer' is a better, more accurate, description of what most people in Britain play with a ball than the broad meaning 'football'. So in that instance 'Soccer' is correct, yet papers and so on often incorrectly use the word 'Firestorm'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The price definition of the Holocaust is open to debate -- see the lead in the Wikipedia article which emphasise the narrow definition -- but lets leave that aside. To clarify in Britain soccer is not a term used within the sport and many fans dislike the term because it is thought (incorrectly) to originate in the USA (eg see the movie Green Street (2005) "Stop saying soccer") and hence fans think it is only used by people who know nothing of the sport (including all Americans and English rugby playing Ruperts) -- so why do some news items in the UK use soccer and not football, even though it will annoy some fans? The point I was making is that terms like firestorm, genocide (and soccer) are often used because they sound better than more precise worded descriptions. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Storm force winds

The only conflagrations that were definitely firestorms were the RAF raids on Hamburg and Dresden where the unfortunate victims were incinerated or suffocated in their shelters due to the combined fires exhausting all the oxygen in the vicinity. In both raids the tarmac on the roads melted, and fleeing people lost their shoes, until they eventually became stuck in the molten road surface in their bare feet. They then burnt like candles. There are pictures of incinerated corpses still sitting in cars and in trams after the two raids. These are very specific conditions that almost certainly do not apply to any fires before or since. For one thing the other fire accounts do not mention shrieking or howling hurricane-force winds that picked people up and carried them off into the fires. Truly horrendous experiences. These howling winds are why it was called a firestorm BTW, so unless eyewitnesses report howling, shrieking, hurricane-force winds, then it almost certainly isn't a firestorm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, however all we can do is report what reliable sources state. So by all means include the fact that the firestorms at Dresden & Hamburg are unique, in that they were the only events that produced wind speeds so strong that there are reports of people being swept off their feet, and being sucked into the blazing inferno. In the two named cities the effect of the concentrated bombing, together with the prevailing weather conditions (a temperature inversion), caused a massive inrush of cold air at ground level, causing hurricane-force winds that picked people up off their feet and carried them towards the centre of the fires, as well as uprooting sizable trees. This inrush of air added to the oxygen available to the fires, increasing them further, until eventually there was no more combustible material to burn. There's a description of the process in Alexander Mckee's Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox

There is certainly various intensities of firestorm. The intensity appears to depend on the fire area fuel loading/fuel density, and as you twist the dial on that value, you will produce winds of various intensity, from weak storm/gale F9-F10 to hurricane-force F10-F12 winds. For example, on the low end, you have cities like Hiroshima that are reported to have firestormed, a city which had a fire area fuel density of approximately, just on the threshold, 8 pounds per square foot or 40 kg per square meter. On the high end, you have Hamburg & Dresden which had almost twice the fuel density in the fire area. I have yet to find a single report of a survivor at Hiroshima(a Hibakusha) who reports seeing people being lifted into the firestorm at Hiroshima(as the firestorm winds weren't strong enough) but in the two German cities, there are reports of people being picked up, as you would expect in a F12 storm/hurricane on the Beaufort scale.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The following reference includes some Dresden accounts of people being sucked into the fire that should be included as a point of reference for the strength of the winds. There are probably similar eyewitness accounts in respect to Hamburg. Some Hiroshima survivors report seeing small fire whirls in the rivers - Adjacent to the area of the fires. I've seen some Hibakusha paintings of these.

86.46.191.135 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden were possibly due to the narrow streets causing an increase in the ground level wind speed due to the venturi effect, the air being sucked along the streets and roads being greatly increased in speed and force by the constriction of flow. The effect requires the buildings to remain standing for long enough for the cumulative effect to build up and also requires the buildings to be densely packed with narrow streets fed by wider thoroughfares to supply an inexhaustible supply of new air. This is the reason why Berlin was mostly unaffected, as it featured wide boulevards and was too widely spread with numerous open areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mechanism

The article claims "However according to experts, firestorms do not appreciably ignite material at a distance ahead of itself, during the formation of a firestorm many fires merge to form a single convective column of hot gases rising from the burning area and strong, fire-induced, radial (inwardly directed) winds are associated with the convective column. Thus the fire front is essentially stationary and the outward spread of fire is prevented by the in-rushing wind.[6]" I think this is contradicted by several facts:

1. If the firestorm developes into a mesocyclone, the fire-induced winds will rotate around the centre.
2. Several times a firestorm undoubtedly has ignited materiela at a distance from the flame front.
3. The firefront of several firestorma, e.g. the Great Peshtigo Fire, were far from stationary; they moved very fast.
4. The citation above is from nuclear explosions. A nuclear explosion is a stationary source; some wildfires are extremely mobile.

Pål Jensen (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming in here to bring up your queries, I'll start off by making you aware that due to the position of your posting, your query almost went unnoticed. The convention here is to post new material to the bottom of the page, so that everything is in chronological order. So I ask you to please copy and paste your query, and my following response to the bottom of the page please, otherwise it will go unnoticed by others.

The sources aren't contradicting each other. When a firestorm is burning there is no evidence at all, with the sole exception of relatively rare mesocyclone and fire Whirl events, that a firestorm has ever ignited material 'ahead' of itself.

Fire fronts are largely stationary with firestorms. If you're interested in extremely mobile forest fires, then Wildfire modeling may be of interest to you.

I think the problem you're having is that you've fallen into the trap of assuming that every event classified as a firestorm fire must've remained a firestorm fire throughout the entire burning event. This, in reality, does not happen. The firestorm can run low on fuel, and therefore stop being a firestorm, downgrading to a conflagration, upon which time ambient winds carrying fire brands and hot air, along with thermal radiation can then take over, and cause the conflagration to spread as a typical wildfire once more, in a very mobile fashion, and if the conflagration finds another virgin patch of forest where the conditions for a firestorm to form are again favorable, a firestorm may sprout up again. The entire destruction done by fire in a wildfire that creates a firestorm event however is not solely created by the firestorm, but a mixture of both conflagration and firestorms.

All you have to do is look at the shape of the fire damage created by the Great Peshtigo Fire, which does not look even remotely circular, or disc shaped. Although not mentioned in the article, there is actually a size limit to a firestorm, there comes a point, if there are multiple ignition points, as the firestorm expands radially, i.e from o to O, that combustible material in the center of the firestorm do not receive adequate oxygen to burn, this acts, somewhat, as a buffer and creates a negative feedback limiting its size. Otherwise the entire world would be ravaged by ever expanding continental sized forest firestorms, which would produce severely detrimental climatic effects e.g natural nuclear winters pretty much every fire season. Now I'm not arguing against the fact that there is a remote hypothetical possibility that a firestorm could, given the right conditions, rarely form into a large fire storm cyclone/tornado and sweep through a forest, much as a tornado moves, but records of such things happening are few and far between, bordering on non existent.

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by - 'A nuclear explosion is a stationary source; some wildfires are extremely mobile.' - As the document is about firestorms with discussion on incendiary bombing raid success and nuclear explosions, while it is obviously true that a forest wildfire and a city firestorm are usually created by different ignition sources, natural and artificial, firestorms however do not discriminate against ignition sources, a firestorm is a firestorm no matter what seeded the fire.

Moreover it was not a 'stationary source'/the nuclear explosions thermal radiation that caused Hiroshima to firestorm, but the blast overturning all the thousands of residential charcoal cooking braziers, commonly lit at the time of bombing, 08:15 local time, i.e breakfast time(remember there were no microwave ovens back then, all cooking was done with solid fuel) in the 'flimsily' built Bamboo & rice paper screen homes in 1945 Hiroshima.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tokyo

An IP editor from Ireland is putting into the Bombing of Tokyo section the following text: "although often described as a Firestorm event". The referenced source does not say that the the Tokyo bombing is often described as a firestorm. Also, we do not need so many popular references in the section. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The references state that the Tokyo fire was a firestorm. Sure the sources don't explicitly state that is is often described as a firestorm event but that's obvious by the numerous references that call it a firestorm. All this seems rather pedantic. As the sources call it a firestorm. Both you and I agree that those sources are most probably in error, but it is a matter of debate, and therefore should be mentioned that some sources call it a firestorm. Your edits remove all mention to these sources and the debate and leaves one wondering why Tokyo is in the table in the first place.

86.45.192.251 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Edge cases are always interesting because they help define the boundaries. Perhaps the best path forward here is to give the reader a couple of high quality sources which describe the bombing of Tokyo as resulting in a firestorm. After that, we tell the reader that the prevailing winds prevented a firestorm. By high quality sources, I mean sources that purposely and pointedly use the term firestorm, rather than sources which apparently alternate between conflagration and firestorm as if they were synonymous.

• The book Fire Following Earthquake says that the Tokyo earthquake of 1923 was followed by a fire of such large proportions that it has been variously described as a conflagration and a firestorm. The author says in passing that the March 1945 firebombing resulted in a firestorm.
• Nuclear War: The Moral Dimension: this book struggles with the difference between a conflagration and a firestorm. The author says in passing that Tokyo's firebombing was a firestorm.
• Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation: This author discusses wind speed and fuel load to determine whether a conflagration or a firestorm resulted. Instead of deciding on one of these, the term "mass fire" is used. The mass fire is described as different from a line fire which is a large fire shaped by winds. The mass fire requires a lot of fuel and a lot of near-simultaneous fires started across an area. San Francisco experienced a line fire after the 1906 earthquake. Examples of a "mass fire" include Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kassel, Darmstadt and Stuttgart.

Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The first reference presently in the article, not in your list, is a high quality source that calls Tokyo a firestorm. It most certainly is in error, despite the high winds, they were in 1 direction. So what exactly is wrong with the description of Tokyo that is presently in the article?

Moving on to the other elephant in the room, The last book you include is by Lynn Eden, and I'm familiar with it, although it is a decent stab at laying out the history of war fighting fire research, it does, once again, bring up the issue of whether even Hiroshima was a firestorm as no one reported seeing anyone sucked into the flames after that city went on fire, whereas people being sucked into the flames was reported from Hamburg survivors.

See the definition of a "firestorm" as discussed by Keller & Lommasson on page 217. Lynn, in her prose, seems to equate a mass fire with a firestorm, but as the Kuwait oil fires neatly demonstrate, you can have lots of simultaneous fires burning over a wide area - a "mass fire" - but if the fuel loading in the fire area is not high enough, you're not going to get into storm force wind territory.

So at what speed do winds have to be for a storm to be classified as a storm? Well that's a matter of arbitrary designation, but the storm classes used by say the beaufort scale is presently the issue we have with respect to Hiroshima and Hamburg both being called "firestorms", and on the face of it, maybe falsely suggesting both were as stormy as one another, or similar on the ground. Perhaps like the term storm, an estimate on just how gusty that storm is/was is needed for this article. That not all firestorms are as stormy, some are serious and others are comparatively light-like hiroshima which might more correctly be termed a fire gale as trees survive in Hiroshima to this day, whereas if it were a real fire storm, those trees would have been uprooted by the wind.

86.45.192.251 (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition – an answer to Boundarylayer

“When a firestorm is burning there is no evidence at all, with the sole exception of relatively rare mesocyclone and fire Whirl events, that a firestorm has ever ignited material 'ahead' of itself.”

Yes, mesocyclonic firestorms are relatively rare (good luck). But e.g. the 2002 Durango fire and the much greater Great Peshtigo Fire were just mesocyclonic. In Peshtigo, The Great Peshtigo Fire created winds which lifted houses and tossed wagons around. The synoptic winds during the fire were southerly to southwesterly, but no meteorological observations claim higher synoptic winds than 52 kph in Wisconsin. Father Peter Pernin said westerly winds before the fire hit the town – and as a priest who stood nearby his own church, he was well oriented, I think. A few miles north of Peshtigo, however, Phineas Eames and his family ran westwards to escape the fire – of course because the wind was easterly. On the Northern hemisphere, easterly winds occur north of the cyclone center. I think the winds must have turned easterly or north-easterly on the Door and Kewaunee counties, too, for the fire reached neither the eastern parts of the counties nor the Door Peninsula. And these winds could not have been caused by the synoptic low west or northwest of Peshtigo.

“So by all means include the fact that the firestorms at Dresden & Hamburg are unique, in that they were the only events that produced wind speeds so strong that there are reports of people being swept off their feet, and being sucked into the blazing inferno.”

According to eyewitnesses, the The Great Peshtigo Fire produced wind speeds so strong that people were swept off their feet; in addition, the winds also tossed wagons and lifted houses. I have not seen any report who claimes people were sucked into the blazing inferno, but if a firestorm growns to a mesocyclone, the winds probably blow around the center.

“All you have to do is look at the shape of the fire damage created by the Great Peshtigo Fire, which does not look even remotely circular, or disc shaped. Although not mentioned in the article, there is actually a size limit to a firestorm…”

You are right; the footprint of the Great Peshtigo Fire does not look even remotely circular, or disc shaped. This is especially true north of Menominee. But I have not said all the burned area was hit by a firestorm defined as storm-force winds overall. On the other side, nonburned areaes like parts of Green Bay, may have had storm-force winds created by the fire. So or so, I’ll think a circular footprint of a fire (firestorm or not) is possible only in death calm weather (no synoptics winds), the fuel is uniformly distributed, and the terrain is completely flat. Either a firestorm, a partially firestorm, several firestorns or no firestorm, The Great Peshtigo Fire’s footprint couldn’t be even remotely circular: 1) Locally, fuel (or lack of fuel), topography, winds, etc., influenced the fire’s intensity and spreading. The fire was accelerated by methane gas explosions, heaps of debris, hills etc. – and slowed or inhibited by obstacles like rivers and already burned areas, and especially Green Bay. 2) I’ll think a firewhirl and a firestorm – even a mesocyclonic firestorm – will be influenced by the synoptic winds, like subsynoptic disturbances as dust devils, local thunderstorms, or polar lows – even as great systems as the Atlantic hurricanes are influenced by e.g. the Azores High. And during the Great Peshtigo Fire the synoptic winds were significant. 3) The Great Peshtigo Fire may have been three separate fires – one hit the area south of Oconto, the other ravaged Peshtigo etc.; the third originated east of Green Bay and annihilated e.g. Williamsonville.

“Although not mentioned in the article, there is actually a size limit to a firestorm…” Yes, before or later it will hit areas with too low concentration of combustibles (or too humid or to slow-burning combustibles), or the firestorm-created or synoptic winds will blow the flames back to already burned areas. But how do you define the “size” of a mesocyclonic firestorm? (Cf. a tropical hurricane: A satellite photo of the hurricane, i.e. its cloud system, shows a greater area than the area with hurricane-force winds – in a “weak” hurricane, hurricane-force winds do occur only in a small portion of the weather system).

1. Only the area which burns and has storm-force winds created by the fire?
2. The area which has storm-force winds created by the fire, either burning or not? (Like e.g. Peshtigo River during The Great Peshtigo Fire)?
3. The burning area with winds (both storm-force and weaker) created by the fire?
4. Both burning and nonburning areas with winds (both storm-force and weaker) created by the fire?

On wildfire modelling:
I can’t understand how it is even approximately possible to model e.g. The Great Peshtigo Fire and other potential firestorms from that time. The weather observations were few and far between, the temperatures, winds etc. in the middle or upper atmosphere were not observed at all (e.g., an inversion?), nobody knows where the many small fires united themselves into a firestorm or a non-firestorm conflagration (not even whether or not all the many fires were small), etc. etc.

“Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by - 'A nuclear explosion is a stationary source; some wildfires are extremely mobile.' - As the document is about firestorms…firestorms however do not discriminate against ignition sources, a firestorm is a firestorm no matter what seeded the fire.”

Firestorms do not discriminate against ignition sources, even if they are influenced by the sort of fuels. But some wildfires have burned much greater areas and moved themselves much greater distances than the Hiroshima firestorm. (This statement is not necessarily true compared to an H bomb detonation above a densely populated area, but I hope we do not experience that.)

I have also made comments to the statement: “Although the word is often used to describe any fire which affects a large area…” Also in Norway we have had some wildfires which have affected a large area (albeit dwarfed by e.g. the 1988 Yellowstone Fire) – the biggest since WW2 is named the 2008 Froland Forest Fire, which burned about 27 km². I have not seen neither this nor other of Norway’s biggest wildfirest be called “ildstorm” (Norwegian for firestorm), and in English, the Froland fire is rarely called “firestorm”. If the same is true for big wildfires in other countries, the statement should be removed. Pål Jensen (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Survey of the Thermal Threat of Nuclear Weapons

There is a good table in the above titled 1963 OCD report/office of civil defense document that would be a good addition to this page, written by Jack C. Rogers and T. Miller.

For the comparison section, nuclear weapons have much higher mortality and casualty rates per square kilometer than conventional firebombing, but destroy proportionally smaller amounts of area by fire etc.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a383988.pdf

Edit dispute about the paper What wildfires have taught us about nuclear winter

Recently a number of concerted, and coordinated efforts have been made by User:Vsmith, User:binksternet and most recently User:BarrelProof to remove the above mentioned paper and its summary here on this article. User: Binksternet has blanked the section tendentiously but seems to have backed off and got his friend User:BarrelProof to come in. This friend issued the following edit summary rationale for his blanking. Dubious addition with a non-functioning URL and a statement that non-nuclear events produce nuclear winters.

This friend is either trolling or ignorant of what nuclear winter actually is. If you were even a tiny bit familiar with that climate hypothesis, you'd know that you don't need nuclear events, just firestorms to produce a "nuclear winter". Firestorms, which as you know, could be ignited by asteroid impacts, nuclear weapons, conventional incendiaries, lightning starting wildfires etc. Don't believe me? Here are a number of independent peer-reviewed papers, apart from the one under question, stating that very thing you have displayed to be so ignorant of. Nuclear events aren't needed, just firestorms.

Lastly, the Harvard Bibcode URL does work! Click on that and you'll get the abstract to "What wildfires have taught us about nuclear winter".

I've noticed a lot of established editors here are operating with prejudiced assumptions and biases that aren't grounded in reality. Perhaps Hollywood is more to your tastes?

Having had to go laboriously educate you all on the matter, I would appreciate if you could undo the section blanking now and save me the trouble.

New year salutations, 92.251.172.194 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

References

"a number of concerted, and coordinated efforts...": Bullcrap!

From Nuclear winter: Nuclear winter (also known as atomic winter) is a hypothetical climatic effect, most often considered to be a potential threat following a countervalue nuclear war.

Nope - haven't read the paper, just the abstract to a 2006 meeting presentation which was the reference. The abstract was used to support:

Wildfire firestorms which produce pyrocumulonimbus cloud events, "suprisingly frequently" produce "nuclear winter" effects.

which rather silly scarequotism I removed. And the ip has been edit warring to include and now makes rather wild accusations here about those who disagree. Vsmith (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it "bullcrap" as you put it? I noticed a suspiciously rapid uptake of the issue by "apparently independent" editors all of a sudden in the last day, while before the section had gone completely unchallenged for weeks. Watson would say, that sure would be one mighty big coincidence!

The opportune words from the Nuclear winter article there friend are ..most often considered.. not exclusively!

So you WERE able to read the abstract/get the URL to work. Great, your friend User:BarrelProof apparently was scuppered by it, using that as his rationale for section blanking.

You didn't remove the scarequotes, you blanked the entire section and removed the reference to the paper from the article. I actually would've had no problem with you removing the quotes around "nuclear winter".

Right, now let's assess that "edit warring" claim, shall we? None of us passed the 3 revert rule. While all of you were section blanking, I alone was trying to take your concerns on board and continually altered the section to cater to those concerns, if you made a reasonable argument. It's all right there in the edit history for everyone to see for themselves. Clear evidence that I was attempting to build a consensus with you lot. Instead I got section blanking followed by yet more complete section blanking.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your conjectures about coordinated efforts are, at least in my case, unfortunately incorrect. The person who brought this article to my attention was actually you, not Binksternet. I am merely stalking Binkster's Talk page, so when you accused Binkster of bad behavior on his Talk page, it popped up in my watchlist and I hobbled over to take a look at this little edit skirmish. My impression was that Binkster was clearly trying to help Wikipedia and that you were exhibiting combative behavior. I am pleased that you now have decided to discuss the issue here on the Talk page, so things can be sorted out more properly.

There are also some very interesting further related remarks at User talk:Binksternet#Bias against IP user.

As you quoted, I referred to insertion of a "non-functioning URL" in my edit summary. That URL was http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_U14A.html. When I try to access that URL, I get redirected simply to http://sites.agu.org/, which has nothing of obvious relevance on the page.

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

When I'm confronted by a URL which doesn't appear to work as intended, I plug it into the Wayback Machine. In this case the trick works, providing a collection of conference paper briefs here. The relevant brief says:

Forest fire experts have conjectured and nuclear winter investigators have theorized that extreme fire storms could inject smoke and other emissions into the lowermost stratosphere. Confirmation of this phenomenon has now been realized with the discovery of forest fire smoke in the stratosphere and the link between these smokes (and subsequently other biomass burning emissions) and extreme pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) storms. Since the discovery of stratospheric smoke in 1998, research into the pyroCb phenomenon has revealed that such occurrences are surprisingly frequent, they occur in both boreal and austral hemispheres, they cause hemispheric temperature perturbations, and they typically have impacted remote sensing data in unexpected ways that call for a new look at old archives. In this paper we will discuss the pyroCb discovery, its noteworthy eruptive manifestations, the impact on stratospheric aerosols, and correlation with stratospheric warming/tropospheric cooling. In addition we will revisit historical cases of aerosol layers in the stratosphere, originally ascribed to volcanoes, from a pyroCb perspective.

I didn't see this as sufficiently conclusive with regard to how far into nuclear winter we are taken by smoke from forest fires. In any case, the topic here is firestorm, not forest fires or nuclear winter. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Again I ask, what argument is there for completely blanking the following? Wildfire firestorms which produce pyrocumulonimbus cloud events, "suprisingly frequently" generate minor "nuclear winter" effects. The above was the most recent consensus building alteration I made, while I was allegedly "edit warring". I did that courteous alteration as I recognized you were ignorant and falsely operating under the impression that Nuclear winter conditions are either an on-or-off type of thing. It isn't, there is a scale, just like global warming.

After that, I thought this was a settled issue, but instead your fan - Mr. BarrelProof arrived, who, like you, blanked the section again, but now arguing that the URL doesn't work, even though the hyperlink to the Harvard hosted abstract ALWAYS worked and it would merely have been a matter of more prominently linking to that, or to archive.org. So really this still does not explain why you guys behaved in a way, that made you feel that you could go section blanking a summary of a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

There was ZERO effort on your part to build a consensus, just antagonistic blanking borne out of ignorance of the topic, followed by your fans taking up the game of blanking once you approached the 3 revert rule limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2014‎ (UTQ)

References