Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 19:18:47 -0700, Dude <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 8/2/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
> > On 8/2/26 12:19 PM, Wilson 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:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> 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 remains that ur trying to cherry pick parts of the narrative 
> > you like while ignoring parts of the narrative you don't like
> > 
> >>
> >> Here's one that focused on the boreal forests:
> >>
> >> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043706
> >>
> >> "We present here a 7000-year wildfire reconstruction based on 
> >> sedimentary charcoal series from five lakes located south of Hudson 
> >> Bay in eastern boreal North America. The reconstruction shows a 
> >> significant downward trend in the frequency of large fires from 0.0061 
> >> fire/yr 5000 cal yr BP [5000 calendar years before present] to 0.0033 
> >> fire/yr at present. Simulations of fire-season climate based on UK 
> >> Universities Global Atmospheric Modelling Programme output and 
> >> reconstructions based on proxy data both indicate a shift toward 
> >> increasing available moisture in the region between the mid-Holocene 
> >> and today. We infer that the diminishing trend in wildfire activity 
> >> was ultimately caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in 
> >> summer insolation. Future higher temperatures not compensated for by 
> >> significant precipitation increases will bring fire frequency back 
> >> toward its upper limit, recorded between 6000 and 2000 cal yr BP."
> >>
> > 
> > did u actually read that abstract??? literally the last fucking sentence:
> > 
> >   | Future higher temperatures not compensated for by significant
> >   | precipitation increases will bring fire frequency back toward
> >   | its upper limit, recorded between 6000 and 2000 cal yr BP
> > 
> > ei: current climate change trends will drive the amount of wildfires up
> > 
> > so yes wilson: the fire were trending slightly downwards across 
> > millennia as the holocene is generally characterized by an overall 
> > slight trend in downward global temps until the 20th century ... hence 
> > when we had disrupted that trend with green house gas pollution and now 
> > fires are going up
> > 
> > i honestly don't expect u to ever pull ur head out of ur asshole wilson, 
> > but it is kinda pathetic posting proof that supports my position without 
> > realizing it, eh?
> > 
> You're cutting out again.
> 
> Apparently, human activity causes about 50% (roughly 46% to 54%) of all 
> wildfires in Canada.
> 
> However, while humans start about half of the individual fires, 
> lightning ignites the vast majority (roughly 81% to 85%).

There might be something amiss with your cipherin', Mel.

-- 
-c System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
   OS: Linux 7.1.5 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (610.43.02)