Monday, October 21, 2024

 SPACE/COSMOS

Astronomers detect ancient lonely quasars with murky origins



The quasars appear to have few cosmic neighbors, raising questions about how they first emerged more than 13 billion years ago.



Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Quasar origins image 

image: 

This image, taken by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, shows an ancient quasar (circled in red) with fewer than expected neighboring galaxies (bright blobs), challenging physicists’ understanding of how the first quasars and supermassive black holes formed.

view more 

Credit: Christina Eilers/EIGER team




A quasar is the extremely bright core of a galaxy that hosts an active supermassive black hole at its center. As the black hole draws in surrounding gas and dust, it blasts out an enormous amount of energy, making quasars some of the brightest objects in the universe. Quasars have been observed as early as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, and it’s been a mystery as to how these objects could have grown so bright and massive in such a short amount of cosmic time.

Scientists have proposed that the earliest quasars sprang from overly dense regions of primordial matter, which would also have produced many smaller galaxies in the quasars’ environment. But in a new MIT-led study, astronomers observed some ancient quasars that appear to be surprisingly alone in the early universe. 

The astronomers used NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to peer back in time, more than 13 billion years, to study the cosmic surroundings of five known ancient quasars. They found a surprising variety in their neighborhoods, or “quasar fields.” While some quasars reside in very crowded fields with more than 50 neighboring galaxies, as all models predict, the remaining quasars appear to drift in voids, with only a few stray galaxies in their vicinity.

These lonely quasars are challenging physicists’ understanding of how such luminous objects could have formed so early on in the universe, without a significant source of surrounding matter to fuel their black hole growth.

“Contrary to previous belief, we find on average, these quasars are not necessarily in those highest-density regions of the early universe. Some of them seem to be sitting in the middle of nowhere,” says Anna-Christina Eilers, assistant professor of physics at MIT. “It’s difficult to explain how these quasars could have grown so big if they appear to have nothing to feed from.”

There is a possibility that these quasars may not be as solitary as they appear, but are instead surrounded by galaxies that are heavily shrouded in dust and therefore hidden from view. Eilers and her colleagues hope to tune their observations to try and see through any such cosmic dust, in order to understand how quasars grew so big, so fast, in the early universe. 

Eilers and her colleagues report their findings in a paper appearing today in the Astrophysical Journal. The MIT co-authors include postdocs Rohan Naidu and Minghao Yue; Robert Simcoe, the Francis Friedman Professor of Physics and director of MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research; and collaborators from institutions including Leiden University, the University of California at Santa Barbara, ETH Zurich, and elsewhere.

Galactic neighbors

The five newly observed quasars are among the oldest quasars observed to date. More than 13 billion years old, the objects are thought to have formed between 600 to 700 million years after the Big Bang. The supermassive black holes powering the quasars are a billion times more massive than the sun, and more than a trillion times brighter. Due to their extreme luminosity, the light from each quasar is able to travel over the age of the universe, far enough to reach JWST’s highly sensitive detectors today. 

“It’s just phenomenal that we now have a telescope that can capture light from 13 billion years ago in so much detail,” Eilers says. “For the first time, JWST enabled us to look at the environment of these quasars, where they grew up, and what their neighborhood was like.”

The team analyzed images of the five ancient quasars taken by JWST between August 2022 and June 2023. The observations of each quasar comprised multiple “mosaic” images, or partial views of the quasar’s field, which the team effectively stitched together to produce a complete picture of each quasar’s surrounding neighborhood. 

The telescope also took measurements of light in multiple wavelengths across each quasar’s field, which the team then processed to determine whether a given object in the field was light from a neighboring galaxy, and how far a galaxy is from the much more luminous central quasar. 

“We found that the only difference between these five quasars is that their environments look so different,” Eilers says. “For instance, one quasar has almost 50 galaxies around it, while another has just two. And both quasars are within the same size, volume, brightness, and time of the universe. That was really surprising to see.”

Growth spurts

The disparity in quasar fields introduces a kink in the standard picture of black hole growth and galaxy formation. According to physicists’ best understanding of how the first objects in the universe emerged, a cosmic web of dark matter should have set the course. Dark matter is an as-yet unknown form of matter that has no other interactions with its surroundings other than through gravity. 

Shortly after the Big Bang, the early universe is thought to have formed filaments of dark matter that acted as a sort of gravitational road, attracting gas and dust along its tendrils. In overly dense regions of this web, matter would have accumulated to form more massive objects. And the brightest, most massive early objects, such as quasars, would have formed in the web’s highest-density regions, which would have also churned out many more, smaller galaxies. 

“The cosmic web of dark matter is a solid prediction of our cosmological model of the Universe, and it can be described in detail using numerical simulations,” says co-author says Elia Pizzati, a graduate student at Leiden University. “By comparing our observations to these simulations, we can determine where in the cosmic web quasars are located.” 

Scientists estimate that quasars would have had to grow continuously with very high accretion rates in order to reach the extreme mass and luminosities at the times that astronomers have observed them, fewer than 1 billion years after the Big Bang. 

“The main question we’re trying to answer is, how do these billion-solar-mass black holes form at a time when the universe is still really, really young? It’s still in its infancy,” Eilers says. 

The team’s findings may raise more questions than answers. The “lonely” quasars appear to live in relatively empty regions of space. If physicists’ cosmological models are correct, these barren regions signify very little dark matter, or starting material for brewing up stars and galaxies. How, then, did extremely bright and massive quasars come to be? 

“Our results show that there’s still a significant piece of the puzzle missing of how these supermassive black holes grow,” Eilers says. “If there’s not enough material around for some quasars to be able to grow continuously, that means there must be some other way that they can grow, that we have yet to figure out.”

This research was supported, in part, by the European Research Council. 

###

Written by Jennifer Chu, MIT News

Paper: EIGER VI. The Correlation Function, Host Halo Mass and Duty Cycle of Luminous Quasars at z & 6”

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

 

Special Issue explores factors influencing democratic attitudes, and what’s at stake for science in the U.S. after November election



Summary author: Walter Beckwith




American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)




The health of American democracy is facing challenges, with experts pointing to recent democratic backsliding, deepening partisan divisions, and growing anti-democratic attitudes and rhetoric. In this issue of Science, Research Articles, a Policy Forum, a Science News feature, and a related Editorial highlight how the tools of science and technology are being used to address this growing concern and how the upcoming U.S. presidential election could impact U.S. science. 

 

In one research study in this special issue, Jonathan Chu and colleagues sought to understand whether understandings of democracy differ across societies. They investigated global conceptualizations of democracy by conducting conjoint survey experiments in six countries – the U.S., Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan. Chu et al. found that participants consistently identified free and fair elections and the protection of civil liberties as the most essential attributes of a democracy, regardless of whether the country was a well-functioning democracy, backsliding, or non-democratic. Desirable social and economic outcomes were also linked to democracy but, compared to elections and civil liberties, played a smaller role. The findings provide empirical evidence of a universal preference for free and fair elections and civil liberties as the primary markers of democracy, offering a clearer framework for defending democratic norms worldwide.

 

Also in the special issue, Jan Voelkel and colleagues present a megastudy evaluating 25 interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes in the U.S., involving more than 32,000 participants. Rather than expecting single, brief exposures to yield lasting changes, the study aimed to identify which general strategies are effective in influencing partisan and anti-democratic attitudes, thereby enhancing understanding of the key causal forces at play in this space. Voelkel et al. found that many strategies effectively reduced partisan animosity, particularly those emphasizing shared identities or highlighting relatable individuals with opposing political beliefs. Other interventions, like correcting misperceptions of rival partisans' views and emphasizing the risks of democratic collapse, successfully reduced anti-democratic attitudes. However, reducing partisan hostility did not always translate to a reduction in support for anti-democratic practices, indicating that the two issues are distinct. The findings suggest that interventions targeting both partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes can be effective and highlight specific strategies that may bolster democratic attitudes in a polarized society.

 

A summary of a third study in the special issue, led by Michael Tessler and which explores the use of AI to improve democratic deliberation, can be found in a separate SciPak entry.

 

“The articles by Chu et al., Voelkel et al., and Tessler et al. show that online surveys, experiments, and AI-assisted deliberation can help to improve democratic attitudes and build consensus among the public. We welcome the development and refinement of such tools but also caution against focusing too narrowly on public opinion,” write Brendan Nyhan and Rocío Titiunik in a related Policy Forum. The Policy Forum highlights the strengths and/or limitations of the three studies. “Understanding and preventing democratic erosion requires an equal focus on political institutions, electoral rules, and the behavior of elites, the study of which is less amenable to experimentation and is often based on observational research designs and historical data.”

 

A feature story in the special issue by Science’s news team compares and contrasts what the science community could expect from a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris administration, examining issues like S&T funding, science integrity, high skills immigration, and science education. In an Editorial, Science Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp further elaborates on elements in the news feature, including points on which there is agreement in the Trump and Harris camps. “One mat­ter is the US approach to China, a rising research powerhouse,” says Thorp.

 

Podcast: A segment of Science's weekly podcast with Jonathan Chu, related to this research, will be available on the Science.org podcast landing page after the embargo lifts. Reporters are free to make use of the segments for broadcast purposes and/or quote from them – with appropriate attribution (i.e., cite "Science podcast"). Please note that the file itself should not be posted to any other Web site.

 

Raw data and replication code for Chu et al. is available here.

 

Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: Censoring hate speech




University of Notre Dame
Matthew E.K. Hall 

image: 

Matthew E.K. Hall, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

view more 

Credit: Jon Hendricks/University of Notre Dame




There is strong disagreement in the United States as to whether, when and how much hate speech should be censored when posted on social media platforms. Democrats and Republicans, in particular, often argue about this question, especially in light of the Israel-Hamas war sparking further consternation over antisemitic and anti-Palestinian hate speech.

In an era of intense polarization, partisans have historically, and mistakenly, believed that members of the other party prioritize protecting certain types or victims of hate speech over others based on stereotypes or their affiliation with those potentially vulnerable groups.

New research from the University of Notre Dame, however, revealed that Democrats and Republicans generally agree on what to censor when it comes to the target, source and severity of hate speech.

“Basically, partisans misunderstand the other party’s priorities,” said Matthew E.K. Hall, one of several co-authors of the study, “Illusory interparty disagreement: Partisans agree on what hate speech to censor but do not know it,” published recently by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“And these misunderstandings over hate speech censorship might lead to even greater polarization because people misrepresent the values and preferences of the other party members, which, in an election year, can reduce cross-party voting,” said Hall, the director of Notre Dame’s Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies.

The research was conducted by Hall and first author Brittany C. Solomon, the Thomas A. and James J. Bruder Assistant Professor of Administrative Leadership in Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, along with co-authors Abigail Hemmen, a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at Notre Dame, and James N. Druckman, a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Rochester.

Hall pointed out that one major disconnect is that Democrats overestimate and Republicans underestimate the other party’s willingness to censor speech that specifically targets white people. On the flip side, he said, both Republicans and Democrats are especially concerned about antisemitic hate speech and are more supportive of censoring anti-Black speech than any other form of hate speech.

In a survey conducted between Dec. 8 and 22, 2023, the researchers showed more than 3,357 participants a variety of social media profiles containing potentially objectionable speech and asked whether they would remove the post or deactivate the account. The researchers found that members of both parties chose to remove social media posts containing hate speech in the majority of profiles, regardless of the group being targeted. More than 60 percent of respondents recommended removing posts that targeted Black people and more than 58 percent wanted to remove posts targeting Jews. Majorities also chose to remove posts targeting Palestinians (54.8 percent) and white people (54.6 percent).

Some participants felt so strongly about the hate speech that they advocated for deactivating the social media accounts altogether, most commonly for posts targeting Black people (nearly 51 percent) and Jews (nearly 48 percent).

One unexpected finding for the researchers was that neither the source’s partisanship nor position within society affected the participants’ censorship decisions. The bottom line, the researchers wrote, is that “partisans agreed on hate speech censorship based on the source — largely in that the source does not matter.”

This finding was true with one exception: Democrats were more likely to deactivate accounts owned by elected officials versus private citizens.

“Debates on hate speech moderation should focus on understanding misperceptions of censorship preferences rather than on what or who should be censored,” Solomon reiterated.

Another factor considered in the study was the severity of the hate speech content — incitement to violence being the most severe. Partisans also tended to agree on censoring hate speech based on the harshness of the language, with increased support for censorship as severity increased.

While the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, including hate speech on principle, this constitutional guarantee does not allow unfettered hate speech. The government can regulate speech if it is viewed as inciting lawlessness, posing a true threat or breaching the peace, the researchers explained. Furthermore, private actors such as social media platforms can moderate content on their platforms as they deem necessary.

“I think the study’s findings show that social media companies can find consensus policies that can get broad support, even in this highly polarized era,” Hall said.

“Moreover, this research suggests that media framings around partisan debates — like those over free speech — are largely driven by misunderstandings,” Hall explained. “And we need to better educate the public about these misunderstandings.”

At a time when democracy is in crisis, Hall noted that it is important to focus on the country’s core and essential democratic principles, including free speech as well as voting rights and civic engagement.

“Free speech is an essential value in a democratic society, and disagreements over censorship are increasingly prominent in that realm. It’s important to think about how we build and maintain consensus around appropriate levels of censorship in order to preserve core free speech rights,” Hall said.

Hall added that this particular study only focused on antisemitism and anti-Palestinian hate speech given the ongoing war in Israel, as well as anti-Black and anti-white speech given their significance in American culture.

“Further research on hate speech censorship should include additional comparisons across hate speech targeting other social groups,” the researchers noted.

Contact: Tracy DeStazio, associate director of media relations, 574-631-9958 or tdestazi@nd.edu

 

New study reveals a global consensus on what democracy means



University of Oxford


  • Researchers have carried out a new comprehensive assessment on how different people around the world understand the concept of ‘democracy.’

  • The results demonstrate that -overwhelmingly- people in diverse countries agree that two factors are the most important for democratic societies: competitive elections and strong protections for civil liberties.
  • The findings have been published today (17 October) by the leading journal Science.

Most people in most countries state that they wish to have a democratic government. But the definition of democracy has been contested constantly. Without understanding what people really mean by democracy, the concept is vulnerable to being exploited by dictators and anti-democratic politicians for their own ends. Today, democracy is under pressure within and across societies, even in long-standing democracies such as the United States and India.

A new research study led by the University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, and Emory University has now shed light on the question ‘How do people around the world define democracy?’ The study surveyed over 6000 people from the United States, Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan- countries with highly different political regimes, democratic histories, geographic regions, levels of development, and cultural backgrounds. The study explored how people prioritize nine different attributes in their understanding of what makes a country democratic, using examples of hypothetical countries.

Key findings:

  • Overwhelmingly, the two most important factors identified by participants were competitive elections and strong protections for civil liberties. The relevance of these was consistent regardless of people’s age, gender, education, minority status, or political ideology.
  • Participants were significantly more likely to view countries that select their leaders through free and fair elections as more democratic than countries without elections.
  • Participants were also significantly more likely to view countries with strong protections for civil liberties as more democratic compared with countries without such protections.
  • After elections and liberties, the two most important attributes were gender equality, then economic equality. Countries in which men and women have equal rights are more likely to be seen as democratic than countries with highly unequal gender rights. Relative equality between the rich and poor (compared with high inequality) also increased the likelihood that a country was seen as more democratic.
  • Institutional checks and balances were also seen to be important for democracy, although not as significantly as elections or civil liberties.  Countries where leaders must respect the legislature and courts’ authority in decision making were more likely to be perceived as more democratic compared with countries in which the leader frequently bypasses the legislative and judicial branches when making decisions.
  • Finally, participants were generally more likely to see countries in which they can directly vote on policies as more democratic, but this ‘direct democracy’ was relatively unimportant compared to other factors.

In contrast the researchers found little evidence of an ‘authoritarian’ redefinition of democracy taking root anywhere. Even within authoritarian countries such as Egypt or Thailand, democracy was still perceived as being rooted in elections and liberties.

Co-author Associate Professor Scott Williamson (Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford) said: “We found that people across six very different countries consistently emphasize competitive elections and civil liberties as key determinants of what makes a country democratic. This shared understanding of democracy’s most important elements makes it more likely that people can identify undemocratic behaviour and push back against undemocratic political leaders.”

Co-author Professor Jonathan A. Chu (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore) added: "Our research speaks to the international competition over the place and meaning of democracy worldwide, as countries like China advance definitions of democracy that challenge traditional understandings that focus on free and fair elections and individual liberties."

Co-author PhD candidate Eddy S. F. Yeung (Department of Political Science, Emory University) said: “The concept of democracy is increasingly muddled in global conversations, especially in an era of democratic backsliding. Our collaborative effort provides systematic evidence that conventional elements of democracy still play an important role in shaping ordinary citizens’ understandings of democracy."

Notes for editors:

For interviews and media requests, contact Associate Professor Scott Williamson: scott.williamson@politics.ox.ac.uk

The paper ‘People consistently view elections and civil liberties as key components of democracy’ will be published in Science at 19:00 BST / 14:00 ET Thursday, 17 October 2024, DOI: 10.1126/science.adp1274 Advance copies of the paper may be obtained from the Science press package, SciPak, at https://www.eurekalert.org/press/scipak/ or by contacting scipak@aaas.org.

About the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR), University of Oxford

DPIR is one of the largest departments working in Politics and International Relations in the world, and is active in both undergraduate and graduate teaching. With around 90 academic staff, it is world class in international and national research and teaching; in September 2024, The Guardian UK ranked us the Number One University in the UK for Politics. We are home to major research projects, a vibrant community of academic visitors, and a strong group of post-doctoral researchers, supported by highly competitive research fellowships, working across a broad range of disciplinary fields.

About the University of Oxford

Oxford University has been placed number 1 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings for the ninth year running, and ​number 3 in the QS World Rankings 2024. At the heart of this success are the twin-pillars of our ground-breaking research and innovation and our distinctive educational offer.

Oxford is world-famous for research and teaching excellence and home to some of the most talented people from across the globe. Our work helps the lives of millions, solving real-world problems through a huge network of partnerships and collaborations. The breadth and interdisciplinary nature of our research alongside our personalised approach to teaching sparks imaginative and inventive insights and solutions.

Through its research commercialisation arm, Oxford University Innovation, Oxford is the highest university patent filer in the UK and is ranked first in the UK for university spinouts, having created more than 300 new companies since 1988. Over a third of these companies have been created in the past five years. The university is a catalyst for prosperity in Oxfordshire and the United Kingdom, contributing £15.7 billion to the UK economy in 2018/19, and supports more than 28,000 full time jobs.

 

Global CO2 emissions from forest fires increase by 60%




University of East Anglia



A major new study reveals that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from forest fires have surged by 60% globally since 2001, and almost tripled in some of the most climate-sensitive northern boreal forests. 

The study, led by the University of East Anglia (UEA) and published today in Science, grouped areas of the world into ‘pyromes’ - regions where forest fire patterns are affected by similar environmental, human, and climatic controls - revealing the key factors driving recent increases in forest fire activity. 

It is one of the first studies to look globally at the differences between forest and non-forest fires, and shows that in one of the largest pyromes, which spans boreal forests in Eurasia and North America, emissions from fires nearly tripled between 2001 and 2023. 

Significant increases were seen more broadly across the extratropical forests and amounted to an additional half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year, with the epicentre of emissions shifting away from tropical forests and towards the extratropics. 

Increased emissions were linked to a rise in fire-favourable weather, such as the hot-dry conditions seen during heatwaves and droughts, as well as increased rates of forest growth creating more vegetation fuels. Both trends are aided by rapid warming in the high northern latitudes, which is happening twice as fast as the global average. 

The study reveals a worrying increase in not only the extent of forest wildfires over the last two decades, but also their severity. The carbon combustion rate, a measure of fire severity based on how much carbon is emitted per unit of area burned, increased by almost 50% across forests globally between 2001 and 2023. 

The work involved an international team of scientists - from the UK, the Netherlands, US, Brazil, and Spain - who warn that further expansion of forest fires can only be averted if the primary causes of climate change, such as fossil fuel emissions, are tackled. 

Lead author Dr Matthew Jones, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, said: “Increases in both the extent and severity of forest fires have led to a dramatic rise in the amount of carbon emitted by forest fires globally. Startling shifts in the global geography of fires are also underway, and they are primarily explained by the growing impacts of climate change in the world’s boreal forests. 

“To protect critical forest ecosystems from the accelerating threat of wildfires, we must keep global warming at bay and this underscores why it is so vital to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions.” 

Threats to carbon storage 

Forests are of worldwide importance for carbon storage, with their growth helping to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce rates of global warming. They also play a crucial role in meeting international climate targets, with reforestation and afforestation schemes being implemented to remove carbon from the atmosphere and offset human CO2 emissions from hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation and certain industries.

The success of these schemes relies on carbon being stored in forests permanently, and wildfires threaten that. Extratropical fires are already emitting half a billion tonnes more CO2 than two decades ago, and the long-term effect depends on how forests recover. More widespread and severe forest fires are a sign that emissions are now out of balance with the carbon captured by post-fire recovery. 

Dr Jones, a NERC Independent Research Fellow, said: “The steep trend towards greater extratropical forest fire emissions is a warning of the growing vulnerability of forests and it poses a significant challenge for global targets to tackle climate change.  

“We know that forests rebound poorly after the most severe fires, so there is huge interest in how the observed increases in fire severity will influence carbon storage in forests over the coming decades. This demands our close attention.” 

Escalating wildfire impacts masked until now 

Significantly, the increased emissions from forest fires contrasts with the reduced burning of the world’s tropical savannahs during the same period. Previous studies have shown that, since 2001, the area burned by all fires (forest and non-forest) fell by a quarter globally, mainly due to this. 

The latest findings are important because forest fires burn more severely and release larger amounts of harmful smoke to the atmosphere than savannah grassland fires, presenting major threats to those living near fires and to more distant communities exposed to poor air quality caused by smoke.  

The authors say the study debunks the narrative that falling overall annual area burned by fire globally means falling wildfire impact. 

“Until now, reduced burning in the already fire-prone savannahs and grasslands has masked increases in forest fire extent and severity that are hugely consequential for society and the environment,” said Dr Jones. “Our work shows that fires are increasingly happening where we don’t want them to – in forests, where they present the greatest threat to people and to vital carbon stores.”  

Managing wildfires 

Machine learning was key to unlocking new observations about the shifting global geography of forest fires. It was used to group the world’s forest ecoregions into 12 distinct pyromes, allowing the researchers to isolate the effects of climate change from other influencing factors such as land use.  

This knowledge also reveals new insights into which strategies can be most effective for mitigating wildfires and protecting forests. Dr Jones said: “Substantial financing is required to support strategic programs of forest management, stakeholder engagement, and public education, all of which represent a meaningful shift of fire management strategy from largely reactive to increasingly proactive. 

“For example, priority areas for forest management and fire breaks must be defined based on proactive monitoring of forest productivity, particularly in the extratropics. Managing fuel loads in places where they could present greatest danger during fire-favourable weather is a key priority for limiting the severity and impact of fires when they do occur”. 
The work was supported by funders including the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), European Commission Horizon 2020 programme, and European Space Agency. 

Extratropical forest fire emissions are increasing as climate changes




Summary author: Walter Beckwith


American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)





As climate change promotes fire-favorable weather, climate-driven wildfires in extratropical forests have overtaken tropical forests as the leading source of global fire emissions, researchers report. The findings raise urgent concerns about the future of forest carbon sinks under climate change. Fire has long played a role in shaping Earth's forests and regulating carbon storage in ecosystems. However, anthropogenic climate change has intensified fire-prone weather, leading to an increase in burned areas and carbon emissions, particularly in forested regions. These fires not only reduce forests' ability to absorb carbon but also disrupt ecosystems, harm biodiversity, and pose significant societal threats. While climate, human activity, and vegetation all influence forest fire patterns, their relative importance varies by region, making it difficult to untangle the multiple controlling factors that influence wildfire trends worldwide. To better understand global fire patterns, Matthew Jones and colleagues applied a k-means clustering machine learning algorithm and grouped 414 forest ecoregions into 12 "pyromes," which are regions that share similar patterns of fire activity based on climate, vegetation, and human factors. Mapping global forest pyromes revealed significant variation in the factors that control fire extent across different forest ecoregions. While human activities dominate fire patterns in tropical pyromes, climatic factors, such as fire-favorable weather and vegetation growth, increasingly drive forest fires and carbon emissions in extratropical regions. According to Jones et al., between 2001 and 2023, forest fire carbon emissions grew by 60%, with extratropical pyromes now surpassing tropical forests in contributing to fire-related carbon emissions. The findings suggest a potential destabilization of carbon stocks in some extratropical forests, underscoring the critical role of climate change in shaping global fire regimes and the necessity of addressing emissions to safeguard forest carbon sinks.