Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
> 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.
> 

that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and specific 
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased heat in 
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.

not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it needs to 
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes that we 
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ change in a 
matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when compared to 
normal geological periodic cycles

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃