Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:28:54 -0700, dart200
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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

I am sure that you could find a year in the past that burned more than
a year now.  The pattern to look for would be a ten year period that
exceeded the current ten year period.  The important thing is that
fires are becoming larger and more frequent year after year lately.
And are burning closer to major cities.  Like the LA fires last year.
Or the fires approaching madrid and french wine country this year.
This is not only a NA phenom.

Regardless of fire stats, current patterns are serious for us right
now.  And do nothing should not be our strategy if that continues.  

>2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical
>average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that
>burned in 1748

So are a lot of recent fires not included in those sample of sites?

>> 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.

While only effectively able to do that since the last 80 or so.  I
don't think that fire suppression over that time would likely suddenly
cause much more fires in the last 10 years.

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

Not a reason to ignore it.  More of a reason to not think comparison
with centuries past to be so significant.

>> 
>> 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
-- 
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