Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:53:48 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

No, I am thinking that your news sources are biased, and mine a
reliable.  I get no science for news media.
-- 
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