Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Aug 3, 2026 at 3:14:30 PM EDT, "Creon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 trenmed 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.

I think he means that in hard to reach forests, (boreal), most all fires 90%
are started by lightning and in other areas it's 50% lightning and 50% human
carelessness.