Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2026 1:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/2/26 9:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> b) it's not climate change that lead to the wildfire deficit, it's human
>>> activity as noted in _both_ studies. 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
>>
>> The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North America are
>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared to the
>> long term history.
> 
> The point being that current trends no longer seem to be cyclical.
> They seem to be more and more year after year.

You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of events 
over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part of a greater cycle.