Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 13:22:58 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 8/2/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:57:40 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2026 12:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/31/2026 6:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the freaking article suggest climate change is not a cause of wildfire
>>>>>> implying it's largely a problem of mismanagement and suppression...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> completely ignoring that boreal forests, where the largest increase in
>>>>>> risk is seen, are largely not managed anyways due to not only the sheer
>>>>>> size but also the fact that managing fuel costs ~10x that of temperate
>>>>>> forest. normal controlled burns aren't an option cause the risks are
>>>>>> just different.
> >>>>
>>>>> I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that will
>>>>> increase wildfires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Satellite data only goes back to the 1980s. But there's solid scientific
>>>>> evidence based on fire scar date from tree rings on old growth trees and
>>>>> studies of sediment data that shows reconstructed wildfire history over
>>>>> thousands of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> That evidence indicates that during the 20th century in North America
>>>>> there's been fewer acres burned than in previous periods. They're
>>>>> calling it a "wildfire drought".
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109
>>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3295264/
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388852965
>>>>
>>>> Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite
>>>> of accepted research.
>>>
>>> That was literally accepted research.
>> 
>> I'm sure you would claim that.  However, the accepted research I know
>> about does say the opposite.
>
>"What "accepted research" actually means.

>Cited and built upon by subsequent studies rather than ignored or retracted.
>
>Consistent with multiple independent lines of evidence.

Yes, these two would be indicators.  I accuse that you have no grounds
for making these claims.  You have not researched these parameters.
You simply assert.

Notice this disclaimer:

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion
in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.

NLM is unsure enough to feel the need to distance themselves from
claims made.

"Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests
pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned
raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire
regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes
(pre-1880). "

Contemporary fire regimes (1984–2022)  Again, fires have progressively
gotten worse since 2022, and averaging together those 38 years masks
what has been going on in the last 20, especially the last 10.  The
important thing in the quote above is that it acknowledges rapid
increase in wildfire area burned.  Yes, and it does not help consider
the significance of those increases to average them together with
times before the increases became so much more evident.

The real question is, are fire patterns in the past 10 years
significant, and if so, what measures can we take against them?

And finally, this is not simply a NA problem.  It is a problem for
europe, australia and other areas.  All of them are seeing recent
significant increases.  It could be that something important is
happening.  Or should we accept himbo's policy that this is all a hoax
and a sham?  Ignore it.

>The key long-term studies meet all of those standards. Marlon et al. 
>(2012) in PNAS synthesized 69 charcoal records covering the past 3,000 
>years across the western United States and found a slight overall 
>decline in biomass burning, with the lowest levels in the Little Ice Age 
>and the 20th century, and a clear "fire deficit" after the late 1800s.
>
>That paper has been cited hundreds of times and is routinely referenced 
>in later work. The North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN) 
>papers (Margolis et al. 2022 and the follow-on Parks et al. 2025) 
>compile thousands of sites and show that, despite recent increases 
>relative to the mid-20th century, many forests are still burning less 
>frequently than their multi-century historical averages. These are not 
>fringe claims; they are mainstream findings in the fire-history literature.
>
>Common objections and why they don’t make the work "unaccepted"
>
>Critics sometimes claim the records are too local, the charcoal signal 
>is noisy, or the conclusions conflict with recent satellite data showing 
>more acres burned since the 1980s. Those are legitimate points for 
>scientific debate, and researchers openly discuss the limitations 
>(spatial coverage gaps, the difference between frequency/extent versus 
>severity, the influence of human land use, etc.). But methodological 
>caveats and ongoing refinement are normal in every observational 
>science. They do not render the body of work illegitimate.
>
>Modern instrumental records (NIFC, satellite burned-area products) begin 
>only in the 1980s and capture a period of recovery from decades of 
>aggressive suppression plus a warmer, drier climate. Paleorecords place 
>that recent rise in a longer context: many western forests experienced 
>far more frequent low- to mixed-severity fire for centuries before 
>organized suppression, and the 20th-century lull is the anomaly relative 
>to the longer baseline. Both timescales are real; they answer different 
>questions."
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away