Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson 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.
>>
> 
> what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol 

The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's climate?

It's not CO2 alone.