Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/3/2026 12:23 PM, Tara wrote:
> 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.
 >
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%).