Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/26 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 10:10:43 -0700, dart200
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/2/26 9:31 AM, 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:
>>>>> On 7/31/26 3:11 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>> dart200 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 1:28 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 4:02:41?PM EDT, "Tara" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:46:18?PM EDT, "dart200"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 12:35 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:11:12?PM EDT, "dart200"
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 11:25 AM, Julian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32?PM EDT, "Wilson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09?PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17?PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last year that government policy was worsening the fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: ‘I told you so.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Ridley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat of wild
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires with prescribed/controlled burns for centuries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canada is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same in co-operation with our native people. We have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem doing this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however because of the acessibility and vastness of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country the size of Britain (and other European
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that controlled fires are a no brainer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke to people populated areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A bit like a volcano.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear day look cloudy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> midwest-northeast-us/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is controlled burning. Another is education and strictly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against those who are careless and start fires through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laziness and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearing vegetation around and near dwellings and building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire resistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would probably be more effective than increasing the price
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> jooliean you truly are a useless fucking retard. this ofc isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>>>>> for u cause ur determined to take ur damned ignorance to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> grave, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the record:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> not only are boreal forest are far too vast to effectively mitigate
>>>>>>>>>>>> increased risk from climate change, meaning we haven't even been
>>>>>>>>>>>> engaging in serious fire suppression for the much of forest so
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ the cause like cons desperate wants to believe; just
>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>>>>>>>>>>>> burns don't even effectively mitigate risk as the ecology of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> boreal
>>>>>>>>>>>> forest is different than a temperate one, so it requires fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>> management
>>>>>>>>>>>> strategies that are far more labor intensive
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ummm. if you care to look back a bit, the problem with boreal
>>>>>>>>>>> forests (in
>>>>>>>>>>> Canada) has already been addressed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> why are you such a dumb fucking liar tara???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> all u discussed was the size of the forest, u did not discuss the
>>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>>> the conventional controlled burns do not effectively mitigate fire
>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>> in boreal forests, nor the increased costs of the various techniques
>>>>>>>>>> that must be employed instead
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and you still haven't even after i've pointed it out in several
>>>>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>>>>> clear evidence of refusing to face the facts like a retarded boomer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course we can't do anything about fires in the boreal forest.
>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>> given ffs We can only do what we can to protect the boundaries. !!!
>>>>>>>> Idiot!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> great so u never mentioned that to joolian or his mindbogglingly stupid
>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> u only admitted it after i pressed for several comments, so i have no
>>>>>>> reason to believe u would have ever mentioned it otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chill. I think I said something to the effect that we have vast forest
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> we can’t do anything about. Maybe not but I don’t understand why
>>>>>> you’re so
>>>>>> on about it. Pick the battles that matter. Or maybe just take a break eh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>> (it's worth noting that's only 2 studies, 2 links each)
>>
>>>
>>> Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite
>>> of accepted research.
>>>
>>> Aren't awards for crappy research, crappy ideas?  Unnobel?
>>
>> *sigh*, noah the research isn't crappy, what's crappy is wilson's
>> conclusions from it.
>>
>> a) the research is largely generalized across the continental us, which
>> does not even have boreal forests, so off to great start there
> 
> Crappy research.  Which lends itself to what wilson wants to believe.

it's not bad research. wilson is just applying it out of the scope of 
research

> 
>> b) it's not climate change that lead to the wildfire deficit, it's human
>> activity as noted in _both_ studies.
> 
> And human activity leads to climate change.  They are trying to not
> run afoul of himbo's policies, and at least get something published.

one of these studies was published in 2012 long before trump noah

> 
> Fewer acres burned.  Yet, wildfire reports in recent years have
> mentioned yearly increases in numbers of fires and acres burned in

  | Our results indicate, despite increasing area burned in
  | recent decades, that a widespread fire deficit persists
  | across a range of forest types and recent years with
  | exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when
  | considering the multi-century perspective offered by
  | fire-scarred trees. For example, ‘record’ contemporary
  | fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical
  | average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that
  | burned in 1748

> North America.  A recent map of fires in canada showed huge fires
> burning from yukon across and down to lower ontario which caused those
> horrible smoky air events.  The sky here was a dark orange.
> 
> No, I don't accept the stories of fewer acres burned.  Notice they are
> saying, in the 20th century.  This is the 21st century and things have
> gotten a lot worse in the last 20 years, especially the last 10 years.

why? direct human activity has been suppressing fire for like 2 centuries.

human activity has also lead to increased risk from climate, but that 
risk has only been relevant in the last few decades in comparison

> 
> Smoke and mirrors.
> 
>> being a complex system ofc several
>> factors can affect wildfire rates, and human activity obviously does.
>> human activity has caused a deficit. which is getting "corrected" by the
>> increased risk from what is still largely nominal climate change across
>> most american forests. this risk is still increasing and we've only
>> gotten started
>>
>> c) the study that does include some of canadian boreal region, records
>> it as the only region burning at a higher rather than historical trends,
>> 159% in fact. probably cause it's largely wilderness and far less
>> subject to the impact of human activity suppressing fire
>>
>> d) one of the studies literally admits extent is largely not the problem
>> for most american forests, but severity is:
>>
>> | Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many
>> | North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented
>> | contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems
>>
>> it's honestly quite eye opening to see just how poor wilson's ability in
>> utilizing evidence is

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃