I argue that a 10 PPM deficit of CO2 multiplies the fire risk by 1,64 based on a probabilistic integral ratio of 1,5×105×(10^-2)xf(x). This relies on the differential and aspiration pattern, the ratio represents the effect of the convective winds multiplicated by the lack of endothermic photosynthesis (under the clouds of the starting fire). 1,5× represents the effects of the convective winds (related to anthropogenic heat emissions), 105×10^-2 the effects of the lack of photosynthesis (small (10^-2) but widespread (105)). It is integrated to give a meaning to the area and if you disregard both datas at the end the real result is of ×1,64.

Evapotranspiration is discarded because it dries up the plants and eliminates the water that could have soaked up or at least slowed down the fire. In fact it accelerates the fire because of the drying up that is brutal and excludes the roots of the plants.

I argue that 55-56% of the fire risk is caused by the CO2 deficit related to public policies because 1/2x=3x+2 is the good answer to the question (1/33)deltatau = 44deltatau+2 which in turn shows the relative dependency of the vegetation to CO2. In this delta is the dependency of the soil to the buoyancy of CO2, which is lost due to heating (it rises up) and tau the dependency of CO2 to heat, i.e. its ability to rise. This factor leads to a cumulus formation which itself is key in stopping photosynthesis, as we saw earlier. The convective cumulonimbus spreads around and shatters CO2 use, evapotranspiration rises up but soils heat up as well and water is vaporized within the hummus in particular. Heated CO2 also spreads around, transferring its energy to water vapor, which rises, accelerating the convection pattern. While the earlier represents 44% of the contribution of CO2, the later represents 10,6% to 11,6% depending on the wood (around coniferous trees it increases due to space between leaves). This is accounted through another equation, deltatau2=delta3 summed up as 2x+1=3deltatau which is integrated as integral(deltatau3)=fx+1×0,111… gives the result, in average 11,1.

CO2 has a higher enthalpy and catalyzes the rise of other molecules because of its attraction effect, materialized by a secondary equation deltaepsilon^3=(deltaepsilon^2)+1,5epsilon^6. This translates the aspiration effect and it solves as 1,566… through the simple computation of its numerals. The key point is also that the fires also show a natural attempt to compensate the lack of CO2 around (even though they start up perhaps as arsons, they spread because of that), this is materialized by the sensible heat equation 2Adeltatau2=4x+3(e^2)×1,3 in which the CO2 spreads around through the 2, it is insufficient but it is an approximation related to the Gascogne fires that allows to modelize their shape (for the 1,3). The answer is self-evident, it is 42. This number shows the actual number of CO2 PPMs missing to avoid these fires wholly.

In pre-industrial eras the temperature was simply lower, this is manifest through the 1,5 at the very beginning which shows the human contribution. Without it everything collapses and it is in fact a 0,2 excess PPM (because deltaepsilon^3 is null). I am working without units because in SI everything compensates so long as time is kept in seconds, etc. There is no need for conversion. It is simply also visible through the flame area vs. superficiy that already burned, this relies on aerial photography. One should be able to integrate the data found on this by 1,5e^x = 1x+2f(x) to show again the amount of CO2 PPMs missing to shut down the fire. If there were more flames relative to burned surface, one would need simply a higher f(x) so everything slides on the right and it is 52 with flames 10% larger (it’s not strictly proportional). One can also integral(2Adeltatau^2) on a simple sheet and it gives the supreme power of CO2 to shut down the fire based on the flame length (axis on the right) and fire extension (axis at the bottom), the axis on the left is used for showing water needs usually. Water needs rise exponentially much more than CO2 needs, which is why as ersätz, CO2 fire extinguishers are used. CO2 fire extinguishers nail it but small amounts of CO2 spread everywhere are the preventive crux that the mainstream left that publishes in Nature does not want to recognize because they cannot accept their contradictions.

Oxygen enthalpy is of 10^-6 whereas CO2 enthalpy is of 10,3. This leads exactly to the same result (54,6%, 55,7% with CO2 enthalpy at 10,34777… which is the maximum based on various calculations available). This is akin to comparing a chemical effect (chemical bonding energy) and a radiotoxicological effect in internal contamination (alpha decay). Literature see water as more crucial because there is a strong ideological reluctance to acknowledging the small aggregated effects, which are forgotten because the teams of scientists also hate microeconomics and non-communist research seen as propaganda. They agitate planetary-scale evolutions to avoid to see the microtrends that everywhere contradict their findings and sometimes add “exogeneous effects” like El Niño when they are cornered. The same communists do not want to acknowledge the dangers of internal contamination of alpha emitters because of the same process, they want to blame capitalism (chemical industries for health, oil industries for fires) and not their own failures.

What about collisions and thermal equalization ? There are much less collisions (only 10^3 per second) in a convective fire than in the standard lower atmosphere because all molecules rise at the same time in the same direction. There’s no comparison possible. In addition to that the Reynolds classification is contested outside mainstream dynamics by the argument that CO2 is a low-enthalpy fluid in comparison with other fluids such as pure sodium (which has an enthalpy of 10^3 but obviously because of flammability cannot be used to extinguish fires). Because of the convective fire the enthalpy gradient equilibrates in macroseconds (approximatively 10^3 seconds, based on the deltatau^3 earlier used, as there is no catalysis without a fire and fire brings up the tau extremely high, at 9,8). Not all fires are convective but not all fires have burned more than 32 000 ha as the Gascogne fire (still rising to 42 000 ha now !).

Molecules don’t collide on a flame because that’s all the principle of a flame, they are all catalyzed in the same direction. The Reynolds number is of 10^7 only at the very top where airplanes do their measures. It is of 10^1 at the bottom because of the lack of mixing as everything is vacuumed by the rising winds. Left-wing authors generalize what is measured at the top as they understand it is needed to hide the extinguishing power of CO2. At the top there is a lot of turbulences and Re is high but the precise nature of a convective fire is that it’s low at the bottom, this should be self-obvious.

The fires in the Gascogne are related to, in particular, old depleted uranium weapons use in the Biscarosse military base (antitank missiles, from 2016 to 2019). This has been measured by NATO. Lightning is attracted by alpha emitters and this can catalyze them near branches as they are oxidized brutally just after they are kicked out of the bolt’s plasma.

Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are rotten, they are the result of a verification by Otto Stern in an environment with a lot of uranium dust (a lot of uranium glass around). Ghislaine Maxwell is a descendent of J.C. Maxwell, she and Jeffrey Epstein used sexual corruption to get scientists to insist on it in scientific papers because they understood it can be used to hide effects of natural, artificial radioactivity, or crematory effects.