Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/3/26 9:46 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 8/2/2026 5:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 8/2/26 12:19 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
> 
> Of course I read the last line. Are you able to interpret what it 
> actually says? -> IF future temps are higher, and IF precipitation 
> doesn't increase, then we'll get more fires like we had in the past when 
> the planet was warmer and dryer than it is today.

bro u are just such a fucking denier. the measured evidence is that 
increased precipitation hasn't negated the increased risk bro

this problem is measurable as an increased vapor pressure deficit (VPD), 
when the higher air temps (that therefor hold more water) pull more 
water from the planets and soil, than increased the precipitation 
replenishes it, which is a drying effect...

explanation of VPD:
https://blog.ucs.org/carly-phillips/what-is-vapor-pressure-deficit-vpd-and-what-is-its-connection-to-wildfires

study showing increase VPD is leading to less plant growth:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37903759

boreal peatlands are browning not greening due to increased VPD:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10689446


> 
> By "current climate change trends" you're pointing to current 

no, literally the past few decades of measurable trends

> interpretations of the computer models that assume the climate will 
> continue to warm because of increasing CO2. Those models might be accurate.
> 
> But as we've discussed some of the models have been depreciated by the 
> IPCC and won't be used in the future because they were too extreme. 
> There are a minority of climatologists who expect even less of an 
> increase going into the future than what the IPCC now says is likely. 
> Those dissenting scientists might be wrong.
> 

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃