Irrefutable NASA data: global fires down by 25 percent

Using satellite technology, NASA determined that between 2003 and 2019, global fires have dropped by roughly 25 percent. This makes the “climate change is worsening wildfires” argument completely moot.

From NASA Earth Observatory

The control of fire is a goal that may well be as old as humanity, but the systematic monitoring of fire on a global scale is a much newer capability.

In the 1910s, the U.S. Forest Service began building fire lookout towers on mountain peaks in order to detect distant fires. A few decades later, fire-spotting airplanes flew onto the scene. Then in the early 1980s, satellites began to map fires over large areas from the vantage point of space.

Over time, researchers have built a rich and textured record of Earth’s fire activity and are now able to analyze decadal trends. “The pace of discovery has increased dramatically during the satellite era,” said James Randerson, a scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Having high-quality, daily observations of fires available on a global scale has been critical.”

The animation above shows the locations of actively burning fires on a monthly basis for nearly two decades. The maps are based on observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. The colors are based on a count of the number (not size) of fires observed within a 1,000-square-kilometer area. White pixels show the high end of the count—as many as 30 fires in a 1,000-square-kilometer area per day. Orange pixels show as many as 10 fires, while red areas show as few as 1 fire per day.

December 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015

The sequence highlights the rhythms—both natural and human-caused—in global fire activity. Bands of fire sweep across Eurasia, North America, and Southeast Asia as farmers clear and maintain fields in April and May. Summer brings new activity in boreal and temperate forests in North America and Eurasia due to lighting-triggered fires burning in remote areas. In the tropical forests of South America and equatorial Asia, fires flare up in August, September, and October as people make use of the dry season to clear rainforest and savanna, as well as stop trees and shrubs from encroaching on already cleared land. Few months pass in Australia without large numbers of fires burning somewhere on the continent’s vast grasslands, savannas, and tropical forests.

But it is Africa that is truly the fire continent. On an average day in August, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometers (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites detect 10,000 actively burning fires around the world—and 70 percent them happen in Africa. Huge numbers of blazes spring up in the northern part of continent in December and January. A half year later, the burning has shifted south. Indeed, global fire emissions typically peak in August and September, coinciding with the main fire seasons of the Southern Hemisphere, particularly Africa. (High activity in temperate and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere in the summer also contribute.)

August 29, 2018JPEG

The second animation underscores how much fire activity shifts seasonally by highlighting burning activity during December 2014, April 2015, and August 2015. The satellite image above shows smoke rising from the savanna of northern Zambia on August 29, 2018, around the time global emissions reach their maximum.

Though Africa dominates in the sheer number of fires, fires seasons there are pretty consistent from year-to-year. The most variable fire seasons happen elsewhere, such as the tropical forests of South America and equatorial Asia. In these areas, the severity of fire season is often linked to cycles of El Niño and La Niña. The buildup of warm water in the eastern Pacific during an El Niño changes atmospheric patterns and reduces rainfall over many rainforests, allowing them to burn more easily and widely.https://www.youtube.com/embed/69N494UIlS8?flag=1&enablejsapi=1&html5=1&origin=https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Despite the vast quantities of carbon released by fires in savannas, grasslands, and boreal forests, research shows that fires in these biomes do not generally add carbon to the atmosphere in the long term. The regrowth of vegetation or the creation of charcoal typically recaptures all of the carbon within months or years. However, when fires permanently remove trees or burn through peat (a carbon-rich fuel that can take centuries to form), little carbon is recaptured and the atmosphere sees a net increase in CO2.

That is why outbreaks of fire in countries with large amounts of peat, such as Indonesia, have an outsized effect on global climate. Fires in equatorial Asia account for just 0.6 percent of global burned area, yet the region accounts for 8 percent of carbon emissions and 23 percent of methane emissions. On October, 25, 2015, the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera aboard the DSCOVR satellite acquired an image (below) of heavy smoke over Indonesia; El Niño was particularly active at the time.

October 15, 2015

One of the most interesting things researchers have discovered since MODIS began collecting measurements, noted Randerson, is a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent.

As populations have increased in fire-prone regions of Africa, South America, and Central Asia, grasslands and savannas have become more developed and converted into farmland. As a result, long-standing habits of burning grasslands (to clear shrubs and land for cattle or other reasons) have decreased, explained NASA Goddard Space Flight scientist Niels Andela. And instead of using fire, people increasingly use machines to clear crops.

“There are really two separate trends,” said Randerson. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

2003 – 2015

When researchers began using satellites to study the world’s fires in the 1980s, they were just sorting out the basics of how to detect fires from space. Now after mining MODIS data for nearly two decades, scientists are looking ahead to other satellites and technologies that they hope will advance the study of fire in the coming years.

A series of follow-on sensors called the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi NPP and NOAA-20 satellites now make near-real time observations of emissions that are even more accurate than those from MODIS because of improved fire detections along the edge of the edges of images, noted Andela.

Meanwhile, the launch of satellites with higher-resolution sensors is also helping. “The Landsat 8 and Sentinel satellites, in particular, are contributing to a revolution in our ability to measure the burned area of small grassland and forest fires,” said Randerson. “And we are going to need additional detection capabilities in the coming years to track increasingly destructive mega fires during all times of day and night.”

References & Resources

135 thoughts on “Irrefutable NASA data: global fires down by 25 percent

  1. So wildfires are down. What about the NON wildfires set by arsonists. Can NASA discern the difference from space? My heart goes out to those on the west coast dealing with this mess….as a result of arsonists, stupid stunts and the fact that environmentalists don’t really seem to care about the environment or they wouldn’t have stopped the controlled burns that could have helped control some of this.

    • we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

      Which of the new satellites is able to detect attribution? I must have missed that is the spec.

  2. “…. we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”
    You can smack ‘em hard with the stats and they still believe what they want to believe.

      • Mainly where demo☭rats are in control. They’re more are sustaining problems so they retain power rather than promoting actual solutions.

        • I’m still amazed that the only places where racism and poverty are a problem are those places where Democrats have been in control for a generation or two.

      • Not really. NOAAs Climate Reference System shows clearly that the lower 48 has not warmed at all since 2005, when it started recording data, and likely earlier if one believes the Historical Climate Reference System data from earlier years. I expect that the great disappointment being slowly created by the Reference System will force NOAA to suddenly determine that the data need adjustment because of some recently discovered phenomena or will force NOAA to abandon the global warming scare they are promoting. How long will it be, when the CRS gets to 20 years, 30 years? Place your bets.

        • I’m puzzled why, in 2020, this article would choose to present data from 2003 to 2015. Could there be data mining here?

          Also the number of fires is interesting but I believe acres burned are more important, and more related to fuel load, than the number of fires.

          Natural forests = naturally large fires.

  3. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.” says James Randerson.

    I’m sure it has nothing to do with the poor forest management that has plagued the west coast over the past 30+ years allowing a buildup of fuel. Let’s jump right to blaming climate change.

    • I would expect that a global phenomena would have global effects. It seems to me that if one region is experiencing different effects, you would want to look into what makes that region different.

    • Matthew Siekierski September 16, 2020 at 6:39 am

      I’m sure it has nothing to do with the poor forest management…

      That’s right, it has everything to do with President Trump!       

    • Matthew, no no no! You must place blame in the proper order. First comes Orange-Man-Bad. Everything he does is bad. When he doesn’t do something, that is bad. All bad. Only after Orange-Man-Bad you can blame “climate change” because that is an alleged problem that only Government can fix. Orange-man-Bad Government doesn’t want to. Free enterprise can’t. Individuals, even very rich individuals can’t. God apparently can’t or so the Pope says. And no single Government can fix it so they must band together. Call it the United Nations if you want. Only UN Government can, and at that, only Democrat UN Government can, certainly not Republican Governments of any stripe.

      I hope this explains our current reality to you.

      I also hope you are like me, old, and won’t have to live long with this reality. Suffer the little children? Truer than we may think.

  4. “global wildfire down by 25 percent”

    I assume this is because the forests were cut by 25%
    This might also be the reason for the observed warming.

      • Does it?

        Global forest cover now has been estimated to be just 30% or 40 million square kilometres (4.3×1014 sq ft) in 2006[4] with 12-yearly losses (2000-2012) amounting to 2.3 million square kilometres (2.5×1013 sq ft) and reforestation gains about 0.8 million square kilometres (8.6×1012 sq ft).[5]

        • 25% reduction of forests? Do the math.

          I know many here respond to these types of comments by showing the math, but Alex needs to learn the hard way.

          Alex, come back and post your correction after you can show your work.

        • Hey, Alex, why don’t you parachute into the Amazon Basin and see if you can land in a clear cut? That would constitute a Reality Check.

          • Why parachute?
            You can drive through many fresh clear cut.
            Brasilians cut and burn the forest for palm oil plantages.
            What for?
            For EU “biofuel”

          • So all this forest loss you are yapping about is to do with the greenie pseudo-environmental agenda.

            Thanks for telling us all what we already know.

            EU would destroy far less land by sticking to fossil fuels.

    • August, 2018:

      A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses

    • Alex, You assume wildfire = forest fire. Wrong and way over simplified. Read more. The big fires are grassland fires. Look at the chaparral fires in Southern Kalifornia or the Talent fire in Oregon or savanna fires in Africa. The main cause is wind coupled with dry, end of summer fuel and low humidity. Add to this a mix of incompetent politicians like the Democrat governors and legislators in the 3 western US states and disaster is going to happen. They focus on the wrong problems and miss out on obvious solutions. What was a small fire in Oregon, known as Beachie Creek, was ignored for weeks because jurisdiction was unclear. Then the wind changed and it burned thru the little town of Detroit Lake. Politicians are responsible for that fire and the severity of most others, not climate.

  5. Thanks, Anthony, for another of your well-researched articles!
    However, why does the lead graph stop in 2015, when the lead paragraph refers to a trend through 2019?
    Also, although I see the animation for 2014-15, I don’t see the almost two decade one referred to in the text.

  6. the worst arsonist in USA seems to be PG&E. Weren’t they recently convicted of causing the deaths of 84 people and billions of dollars of damage to homes and the city of Paradise?

    They are also held responsible for causing 17 of 21 major fires in 2017.

    • They may have been convicted, but that hardly means they are guilty, especially in Calizuela. They’ve been forced to spend money buying renewable energy credits while getting hamstrung by folks trying to prevent them keeping the power line rights-of-way cleared of fuel. I’m sure they bear some of the blame, but it’s not as clear cut as some would have you believe.

    • Their power lines don’t fall down and cause fires. Trees fall onto the power lines and cause fires. And it is CA government that keeps them from clear cutting along their power lines.

      So while they may have been convicted it isn’t strictly their fault. If I had been head of PG&E I would have told CA government that if I can’t clear cut rights-of-way then those lines won’t carry any power. Shut it off and see how long it takes the people to force the government to change regulations.

    • One of the sure signs of insanity is to always attack the wrong target! A man who has had a bad day at work kicks the dog or insults the wife instead of seeking solace and comfort from them!
      Stephan calls PG&E the worst arsonist in the US even though they were forced to take money away from upgrading and protecting their infrastructure and invest it in Unreliable wind and solar energy projects that inflated utility costs for all the residents of Calizuela. But they did not redirect this money voluntarily, rather they were forced by a long line of Progressive politicians, who were beholden to the Green Blob, to enact the policies that led to some of their deadliest fires.
      If I am forced to do something that later results in tragic consequences who is at fault? In most legal systems the coercer or extorter is held legally liable, not the victim of the coercion or extortion. In Stepfan’s world the victim is responsible since Progressive politicians are blameless; just like the saints and angels of most religions!
      The High Church of Climastrology, a subsidiary branch of the Church of the Revealed Activism, Progressive (CRAP for short;) can never place blame on government actions or employees! Only private individuals or businesses clinging to the last vestiges of the capitalist system are responsible for evil; it’s their dogma, and they’re sticking to it!

  7. A bit OT.

    At a small nature reserve in Denmark in 1980s, the authorities made controlled burn in parts of the heather.
    They burned the heather in stripes in order to refresh the vegetation for some of the rare birds living there.

    At the same time the farmers did controlled burn for better yield.

    Also at the same time the foresters proved the firebelts in the forests, ensuring roots and vegetation would not degrade the pathways’ protective purpose.

    Controlling fire is what made mankind so successful.

  8. This article appears to be saying fires, mostly human set for agricultural purposes, are diminishing, but little is said to distinguish trends in controlled and uncontrolled (i.e., wildfire) burning. There is a nod the effects of land use change in Indonesia and equatorial Asia (evidenced by fire) on CO2 emissions. The impact of land use change on the carbon cycle is known to be large, and reversing that trend alone could largely offset CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, slowing or stopping the rise of atmospheric CO2. Of course, nobody is shaming those countries or attempting to mitigate the problem, because they are not those evil Europeans and Americans.

    Then James Randerson says, “… we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.” That subject has been actively discussed in multiple threads here on WUWT, where the evidence suggests western U.S. and Australian wildfires have little or nothing to do with climate change. Where did his comment come from? Oh, yes. He is a University of Calizuela Professor. He doesn’t want to lose his job while begging for more funds.

  9. James Randerson:

    “… we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

    An unsubstantiated assertion if ever there was one.

  10. Apparently Mr. Randerson doesn’t want to be canceled. All government employees who release any information related to weather must include the obligatory genuflect to climate change.

    “There are really two separate trends,” said Randerson. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

  11. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

    Stated without presenting supporting evidence. Just as “Climate change has increased fire risk in many regions”

    It’s become a matter of faith, and there is no arguing to the contrary. Even more so among the unwashed masses who cling tenaciously to their climate prophets.

  12. Oh, this will get the dead fish treatment from media, and no doubt several Democrat members of Congress will demand the NASA employees responsible for this report are severely disciplined.

  13. Of course, according to Scientific American, this is wrong.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden
    I’ll pick only one Sci Amer article error, they would call it a lie–“The changing climate is already causing a rise in heat-related deaths and an increase in severe storms, wildfires and extreme flooding.”

    Loehle, C., Staehling, E. Hurricane trend detection. Natural Hazards (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04219-x “Hurricane and major hurricane landfall counts exhibited no significant overall trend over 167 years of available data, nor did accumulated cyclone energy over the continental USA over 119 years of available data, although shorter-term trends were evident in all three datasets…. Storm energy data 1900–2018 over land were also analyzed. The trend was again zero…..”

  14. The trend for the western U.S. since the 1950s is strongly upwards and will get worse if we don’t reduce the fuel load.

    • The trend for the western U.S. since the 1950s is strongly upwards and will get worse if we don’t reduce the fuel load.
      It’s easier to blame climate change than it is to actually do something and take responsibility. I suspect that approach will continue.

  15. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

    So climate change affecting fires is ONLY happening in the western United States? Pull the other one!

    Or alternatively, if the reach in western United States is increasing, then the drop in global wildfires for the rest of the world is even greater?

    So do NASA show the results of their analysis for different countries or regions?

    • “So climate change affecting fires is ONLY happening in the western United States?”
      Hey, genius, it was highlighted as an EXAMPLE.

  16. I’m sorry, but things have changed rapidly since 2015.

    Fires in Siberia, the Amazon, Sweden, western USA etc have reached new record levels.

    which this article conveniently ignores since it focusses back on good old 2015.

  17. Jesus Christ, you cannot be this stupid! The article itself clearly explains why this DOES NOT make “climate change is worsening wildfires” argument moot. The decrease in area is clearly attributed to increasing cultivation of savanna and changing cultivation practices. All the while: “we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change”.

    • Calm down. All you need to start a fire is plenty of fuel and a flame. No fuel and/or no flame = no fire.
      The air temperature is barely relevant and certainly 1°C or thereabouts is not going to make one iota of a difference.

      Stupid greens who refuse to allow removal of the fuel and a**holes with matches (sometimes deliberate, sometimes not) are the cause of fires not minute variations in the climate.

      • “All you need to start a fire is plenty of fuel and a flame”
        Bullshit. Science deniers have concocted together this fuel-theory in a desperate attempt to explain away these exceptional fires. Actual scientists are unequivocal in asserting that this is NOT the case, solely fuel buildup can’t explain it. Anthony is trying something impossible by getting some real scientific stuff to support science denial. No wonder he kicked his own bottom by quoting paragraphs that directly contradicted his intentions (and his introductory paragraph).

        • Tree coverage has increased more than tree losses over the past 35 years. It isn’t cutting down trees that has reduced fires.

          As I learned in the Boy Scouts long ago, all you need for fire is fuel and flame – period.

          Wood burns when it is heated over 470degF. The outside temperature, even in CA, never gets that hot. And there *has* to be fuel in order for there to be a wildfire, noting else. CO2 doesn’t burn. Oxygen by itself can’t start fires. Spontaneous combustion is a myth.

          The so-called “scientists” rejecting the fuel buildup theory are the same “scientists” that told CA politicians that forest management isn’t necessary, i.e. the Greenies. So CA got 40 years of fuel build-up. Of course the Greenies are rejecting the fuel load theory. Pete forbid they should have to admit they were wrong!

          Ask farmers in the central US how fuel reduction in savannahs are required to stop significant grass fires covering hundreds of acres!

        • Bullshit!

          Eco-activists who wouldn’t understand grade school science if they fell over it have been making up stories for decades aimed at undoing a couple of hundred years of genuine scientific and technological progress which amongst other “benefits” has got them to the point where they can freely display their complete ignorance of how the “environment” they pretend to care about actually works.

          And the rest of us have to put up with it. But only up to a point.

          Fire requires two things and two things only — fuel and ignition. Given a fuel load you can start a fire anywhere you like. Without a fuel load you cannot start a fire anywhere at all.

          Even a cretin understands that; it takes a stubborn econut to look for unnecessary reasons.

          • “Eco-activists who wouldn’t understand grade school science”
            It’s interesting on its on right how you science deniers try to deal with the cognitive dissonance of denying science and trying to look scientific. Well, scientists (who are, accidentally, not grade school kids) of course are constantly debunking your bullshit. Activists are like, well, activists, like most of you here, but specifically eco-activists actually want you to listen to real scientists.

            “Fire requires two things and two things only — fuel and ignition.”
            Yeah, and a few other conditions as well. Wet wood won’t ignite under normal circumstances and temperatures. NB a few percent higher oxygen levels in the atmosphere (like 26%) would make even wet wood burn, just as a sobering illustration how fire is dependent on conditions. Anyway, dry forests, hot+dry air, and wind, in turn, are excellent for fires, and AGW is kindly providing these.

          • “and AGW is kindly providing these.”

            LOL.. that mindless little fantasy again…

            You have yet to provide any evidence that AGW is actually happening.

            Start with the most basic.. empirical evidence of warming by human added atmospheric CO2.

            We are waiting. 😉

          • “Fire requires two things and two things only — fuel and ignition.”
            Yeah, and a few other conditions as well. Wet wood won’t ignite under normal circumstances and temperatures. NB a few percent higher oxygen levels in the atmosphere (like 26%) would make even wet wood burn, just as a sobering illustration how fire is dependent on conditions. Anyway, dry forests, hot+dry air, and wind, in turn, are excellent for fires, and AGW is kindly providing these.

            No fuel no fire, sounds simple, is simple. Hot air is BS, dry is absolutely enough. And an idiot with matches or a Zippo.
            They arrested just again five arsonists.
            Btw, put some wet wood on burnig wood and look how fast it’s dry wood and burns too.
            And what you are telling about oxygen levels….. worth no further comment.
            Dry air and wind has nothing to do with climate change, they exist since ever and weather existes, as fire does, or what do you belive forced evolution to adapt plants and even birds to fire, even to adapt so strong, to be dependent of it ?

          • poor nyolist..

            You keep using the word “scientist” as though you think you know what it means.

            Your posts have proven you have ZERO interest in actual science, unless its presented as AGW propaganda lies and deceit.

          • Wet wood will ignite, it just takes a little longer.
            Not surprised that you don’t know that. Once again not actually knowing what you are talking about doesn’t stop you from making a fuel of yourself.

            There is nothing unusual about the climate in the regions where the fires are, unless you are like griff and insist that history started 10 years ago.

          • Mark:

            Once again not actually knowing what you are talking about doesn’t stop you from making a fuel of yourself.

            I see what you did there.

            Well done!

        • 10 year statistics for the US:

          2020 (1/1/20 – 9/15/20) Fires: 42,270 Acres: 6,712,663
          2019 (1/1/19 – 9/15/19) Fires: 36,745 Acres: 4,280,134
          2018 (1/1/18 – 9/15/18) Fires: 47,734 Acres: 7,222,065
          2017 (1/1/17 – 9/15/17) Fires: 49,399 Acres: 8,378,990
          2016 (1/1/16 – 9/15/16) Fires: 42,972 Acres: 4,774,682
          2015 (1/1/15 – 9/15/15) Fires: 46,005 Acres: 8,807,487
          2014 (1/1/14 – 9/15/14) Fires: 39,566 Acres: 2,926,262
          2013 (1/1/13 – 9/15/13) Fires: 37,688 Acres: 4,025,464
          2012 (1/1/12 – 9/15/12) Fires: 46,427 Acres: 8,392,209
          2011 (1/1/11 – 9/15/11) Fires: 57,735 Acres: 7,542,101
          2010 (1/1/10 – 9/15/10) Fires: 46,409 Acres: 2,699,836

          https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

          Multi-decade stats:

          https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-wildfires

          • On the same page there is a graph titled:
            Wildfire Lossses In The United States, 2010-2019 (1)

            Yes there is an ‘s’ too many. But the interesting thing is that in 2017 the cost increased ten fold and this appears to hold to this date.
            What happened in presumable California that increased the losses so much in 2016/2017

            I know President Trump became president. So did the arsonists all got Trump Derangement Syndrome and played with matches everywhere?

          • Hmm, the number 1 state for property risk by far is CA (3rd column is # of at-risk properties)

            1 California 2,019,800

            That might explain the exponential losses in 2016 and 2017. Another interesting statistic is Alaska has by far the greatest number of acres burned in 2019 – 2,498,159.

            Now I don’t know about you, but I rarely hear about Alaskan wildfires?

        • Still waiting for evidence that human CO2 has caused any warming

          You know nothing about bush fires if you think that fuel-load is not a major facet of the fire’s intensity. Stay in your little inner city leftist ghetto, where you are safe from facing reality.

          • Here you go Fraud
            chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

          • LOL.. Berkley use all the WORST , most tainted data they can find

            They then concoct a load of baloney to stitch it all together with farcical “regional expectations”

            And they provide ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that the warming they create from all this UHI and once-was-data adjustment has anything to do with atmospheric CO2

            Find an actual SCIENTIFIC link, idiot !

            One that goes to something more than a broad search.

            ….. and stop with your moronic attempts at distraction.

            Still waiting for evidence that human CO2 has caused any warming

          • Fraud
            “LOL.. Berkley use all the WORST , most tainted data they can find”
            Mmmm I seem to remember many including Mr Watts being very fond of them before they published their results. In fact AW was quoted as saying “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.”

          • I remember someone asking that anti-science mouthy-piece of their, mosh, to produce pictures of the 6 sites that contributed to most of Africa.

            He found one of the 6, on the top a brick building in the middle of a town. Couldn’t even locate the others.. seriously.. didn’t even know where the data was coming from.. LAUGHABLE.

            The one he did find, like a LARGE PROPORTION of surface sites, it was TOTALLY UNSUITABLE for any sort of climatic data. And they smear it all over the place.

            But that is what they used. That is what the fabricated surface data series comprises.

            And BEST make sure they use all the worst data they can find, then cobble it together as a what can only be described as a load of GIGO !!

          • Still waiting for evidence that human CO2 has caused any warming

            Still scientifically EMPTY………. a complete abyss…… you poor little worm.

          • 1) Models are only evidence of someone being able to get the code they write to compile.
            2) Correlation is not causation.

          • Simon, as usual, what you remember and what actually happened have no relationship.
            Anthony said that he was hopeful that what Berzekley would produce would be accurate. Unfortunately, when the results came out, it was easy to show how it wasn’t.

        • “in asserting that this is NOT the case”

          People on the ground, who actually work with more than bent statistics and psuedo-knowledge, assert that it most definitely IS the case.

          Inner city clowns, like you remain CLUELESS.

          Dry = WEATHER
          (California is known to have very long periods of dry WEATHER in the past and recently)

          Fuel build-up = green agenda of not allowing adequate clearing.

          Put these two together with a wind and a spark and you get an infrno.

          ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with human released CO2

          • > People on the ground
            Who?
            > Inner city clowns, like you remain CLUELESS.
            I’m neither inner city nor clown nor clueless. Triple fail.
            > Fuel build-up = green agenda of not allowing adequate clearing.
            Current fuel build up is not extraordinary, furthermore active clearing is a very recent thing. One thing is sure, acreage is increasing.

          • You may think you aren’t a clown or clueless, however what you post proves otherwise.
            I’m willing to grant that you may actually be telling the truth when you claim to not be an inner city dweller.

            People who actually go into the forest for a living refute your claims that fuel build up is not unusual.

            Your claim that active clearing is a recent thing is also contradicted by reality. Natives in both N. America and Australia have been using fire to control fuel build up for thousands of years, at least.

          • what did Mark Twain say “i’d rather remain quit and have people suspect i am fool, then open my mouth and remove all doubt”

          • ” nor clown nor clueless”

            You most certainly are a clown.

            and most certainly CLUELESS.

            Indians and Loggers used to regularly clear areas of forest.

            Why the LIES.. or is it just IGNORANCE because you are CLUELESS. !

          • @MarkW
            > Natives in both N. America and Australia have been using fire
            > to control fuel build up for thousands of years, at least.
            @fred250
            > Indians and Loggers used to regularly clear areas of forest.
            Of course this above is not evidence for excessive fuel built up as a reason for extreme fires. For a lot of reasons:
            1. You always reference these people’s opinion as supporting you. I have serious doubt that this is true by and large. Well, I have yet to see even a single opinion from Native Americans, Australians or loggers, or any expert, for that matter, in support of your thesis. Only deniers’ sites speak about “fuel” constantly.
            2. Even if what you claim is correct, during the modern era this kind of forestry management hasn’t been around, while fires’ intensity and acreage have been increasing. This is especially true for the period starting from the late 1970s when we have reliable satellite data, at least 40 years. Any theory should explain that.
            3. What we know about these traditional methods makes it clear there was no large scale, conscious landscape management. The natives and loggers etc. operated small scale on the local level, their intentions were diverse, eg. slash and burn agriculture for some of the Native Americans, etc. Picturing this as some kind of fuel management is so obviously anachronistic it illustrates well how desperate you are.
            4. Actual wildlife scientists (who are, accidentally, not climate scientists) say what we have today is abnormal, out of pattern. When a field of science has support from an outside field, that is considered a very strong support for the field.
            5. An interesting thing: there are reliable studies about the history of forest fires in certain areas (like parts of the Yellowstone). They could actually establish a history of fires. Of course these don’t show any conscious management. What they show is that there are very long term cycles (like 130 years) when there’s a really big fire, with small scale fires in between, and the forest is kinda adapted to this. What we have now is obviously out of this pattern.

          • 2. Even if what you claim is correct, during the modern era this kind of forestry management hasn’t been around, while fires’ intensity and acreage have been increasing. This is especially true for the period starting from the late 1970s when we have reliable satellite data, at least 40 years. Any theory should explain that.

            What do you call the “modern era”? I guess if you mean the last 20 years then okay. But that doesn’t seem to support your claim that temps are the cause does it? How much has the temperature risen in the United States since 2000?

            Sorry for any formatting issues:

            Year Fires Acres
            2019 50,477 4,664,364
            2018 58,083 8,767,492
            2017 71,499 10,026,086
            2016 67,743 5,509,995
            2015 68,151 10,125,149
            2014 63,312 3,595,613
            2013 47,579 4,319,546
            2012 67,774 9,326,238
            2011 74,126 8,711,367
            2010 71,971 3,422,724
            2009 78,792 5,921,786
            2008 78,979 5,292,468
            2007 85,705 9,328,045
            2006 96,385 9,873,745
            2005 66,753 8,689,389
            2004 65,461 *8,097,880
            2003 63,629 3,960,842
            2002 73,457 7,184,712
            2001 84,079 3,570,911
            2000 92,250 7,393,493
            1999 92,487 5,626,093
            1998 81,043 1,329,704
            1997 66,196 2,856,959
            1996 96,363 6,065,998
            1995 82,234 1,840,546
            1994 79,107 4,073,579
            1993 58,810 1,797,574
            1992 87,394 2,069,929
            1991 75,754 2,953,578
            1990 66,481 4,621,621
            1989 48,949 1,827,310
            1988 72,750 5,009,290
            1987 71,300 2,447,296
            1986 85,907 2,719,162
            1985 82,591 2,896,147
            1984 20,493 1,148,409
            1983 18,229 1,323,666
            1982 174,755 2,382,036
            1981 249,370 4,814,206
            1980 234,892 5,260,825
            1979 163,196 2,986,826
            1978 218,842 3,910,913
            1977 173,998 3,152,644
            1976 241,699 5,109,926
            1975 134,872 1,791,327
            1974 145,868 2,879,095
            1973 117,957 1,915,273
            1972 124,554 2,641,166
            1971 108,398 4,278,472
            1970 121,736 3,278,565
            1969 113,351 6,689,081
            1968 125,371 4,231,996
            1967 125,025 4,658,586
            1966 122,500 4,574,389
            1965 113,684 2,652,112
            1964 116,358 4,197,309
            1963 164,183 7,120,768
            1962 115,345 4,078,894
            1961 98,517 3,036,219
            1960 103,387 4,478,188
            1959 104,662 4,156,000
            1958 97,910 3,280,000
            1957 83,392 3,410,000
            1956 143,485 6,606,000
            1955 145,180 8,069,000
            1954 176,891 8,833,000
            1953 154,160 9,976,000
            1952 188,277 14,187,000
            1951 164,090 10,781,000
            1950 208,402 15,519,000
            1949 193,774 15,397,000
            1948 174,189 16,557,000
            1947 200,799 23,226,000
            1946 172,278 20,691,000
            1945 124,728 17,681,000
            1944 131,229 16,549,000
            1943 210,326 32,333,000
            1942 208,218 31,854,000
            1941 199,702 26,405,000
            1940 195,427 25,848,000
            1939 212,671 30,449,000
            1938 232,229 33,815,000
            1937 185,209 21,981,000
            1936 226,285 43,207,000
            1935 140,297 30,335,000
            1934 162,663 41,821,000
            1933 140,722 43,890,000
            1932 166,399 42,063,000
            1931 187,214 51,607,000
            1930 190,980 52,266,000
            1929 134,895 46,230,000
            1928 175,934 43,542,000
            1927 158,438 38,531,000
            1926 91,793 24,316,000

            https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

          • @sycomputing
            > What do you call the “modern era”?
            Be careful with the numbers for 2 reasons. (1) We only have reliable data from around the 70s, before that acreage was approximation and extrapolation (you can see the numbers before 1960 are rounded to the 1000). They didn’t actually count fires/acreage in most areas, they extrapolated data from areas they thought representative, and even there measurements could be unreliable. (2) As we go back in time, percentage of forests usually grow, in certain territories dramatically, together with increasingly different cultivation practices, so absolute acreages get less comparable.

            This stuff is well known to experts, the data needs reconstruction and corrections but these are almost impossible now. But from the 70s, it becomes reliable, and other factors are getting similar too. Voila, you can see a marked, dramatic increase in acreage compared to the baseline of the 80s, just as expected.

          • Be careful with the numbers for 2 reasons. (1) We only have reliable data from around the 70s, before that acreage was approximation and extrapolation (you can see the numbers before 1960 are rounded to the 1000).

            You didn’t answer the question, but okay. I’m sure you’ll agree modern techniques for reconstructing historical fire data are just as reliable as modern techniques for reconstruction temperature, so rounded or not, 4,156,000 isn’t that much different than, say, 4,156,100. If you have evidence to back up the contrary please link it for us to read. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to convince me that temperature reconstructions are reliable where fire reconstructions are not, or offer a convincing argument as to why the two should be so different.

            Regardless, there’s no reasonable individual who’d believe that the stats from 1926 – 1959 are so far off as to confirm this generic claim of yours: “One thing is sure, acreage is increasing.” Okay, it’s increasing, but only barely over the last 50 years, and we’re not even close to the 33 year period between ’26 and ’59 where acreage burns were 5 times the average of today. From 2010 – 2019, an average of 5,942,087 acres were burned per year: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

            So this claim is especially odd: “Voila, you can see a marked, dramatic increase in acreage compared to the baseline of the 80s, just as expected.” First, no, there’s no “dramatic increase in acreage” since “the baseline of the 80s.” There’s barely an increase at all on average. And secondly, what do you mean “baseline of the 80s”? You just said the baseline was the 1970’s didn’t you? And why wouldn’t the baseline actually begin in 1960, when the satellite data made everything reliable as you say?

            This stuff is well known to experts, the data needs reconstruction and corrections but these are almost impossible now.

            First, you keep appealing to some expert authority with the “[t]his stuff is well known to experts,” but so far you’ve offered no evidence from those experts other than your words. Your words aren’t good enough. Here’s why it’s problematic:

            https://tinyurl.com/okpubjf

            You claim the experts are with you, so prove it so we can be with you and the experts too. Otherwise, stop saying the experts are with you, because there’s no logical reason to believe you. And before you make another game-over logical mistake, no, it’s not up to your opponent to prove your argument for you, it’s up to you to prove your own argument, thus, specious comments like, “Hey the data is all out there, just look it up” don’t fly in the big-boys intellectual sandbox.

            Secondly, even granting all of your assumptions, your argument seems to rest on the pillar that temperatures over the past 50 years have increased so much as to be causing the wood to spontaneously combust or something.

            How much have temperatures increased in the last 50 years? Given any increase, how will you show the increase, if it exists, has had any reliably measurable effect whatsoever on climate conditions to provide a valid reason to accept temperature as the sole defining factor for the negligible increase in acreage burns? Especially when much better and more logical reasons exist to wholly disregard your argument as unscientific?

          • @sycomputing
            > I’m sure you’ll agree modern techniques for reconstructing historical fire data
            > are just as reliable as modern techniques for reconstruction temperature
            No, these are very different, and historical fire data reconstruction is extremely hard. Furthermore, the variance is likely much bigger than the 1000s. I haven’t checked it and I don’t really care. From the point on where we had reliable data, the pattern is evident.

            > If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to convince me
            and
            > You claim the experts are with you, so prove it so we can be with you and the experts too.
            No, I don’t have to convince you. This whole convincing business has a certain form together with appropriate forums, it’s called “science”, and most matters here have already been through the appropriate rounds of convincing there. Scientific knowledge (at least in natural sciences) is much more than appeal to authority, the thing you try to claim I do. You wouldn’t argue with an aircraft engineer, if you’re not an aircraft engineer yourself. If an aircraft engineer tells you this or that, and some smarty pants from the street tells you otherwise based on half assed knowledge from blogs, you would believe the “authority”.

            > there’s no reasonable individual who’d believe
            > that the stats from 1926 – 1959 are so far off
            Actually the source, NIFC, you referenced, itself EXPLICITLY WARNS data before 1983 “should not be compared to later data.”

            > no, there’s no “dramatic increase in acreage” since “the baseline of the 80s.”
            Yes, there is. Up to the 2nd half of the 90s acreage was between 2 and 4 m. After the 2nd half of the 2000s, acreage is between 4 and 10. You have to be very careful with averages, simply playing with the endpoint of periods may give you big changes in results.

            > You just said the baseline was the 1970’s didn’t you
            No. I only said reliable measurements started from the 70s. As a side note, I was wrong, they started even later, but that doesn’t change anything. We actually have a chance for at least partial reconstruction from existing satellite data beyond 1983. Furthermore, certain localities can have reliable data going back to much earlier, and these again show increase. Queensland in Australia for example didn’t even have large forest fires up to recent time. What we have in Western Oregon seems to be unprecedented in the record. Etc.

            > that temperatures over the past 50 years have increased so much
            > as to be causing the wood to spontaneously combust or something
            No. Just as there were forest fires before, there are conditions that facilitate these. AGW has increased the period and are where these conditions arise. You don’t need spontaneous compustion for that.

          • No, these are very different, and historical fire data reconstruction is extremely hard. Furthermore, the variance is likely much bigger than the 1000s.

            I think you’re lying. You don’t know a thing about the subject matter.

            I haven’t checked it and I don’t really care.

            Yep that’s the definition of the Ilks of Thee – “I haven’t checked and don’t care!!” Well you sure cared when you said this: “Be careful with the numbers for 2 reasons.” Why do you contradict yourself now?

            No, I don’t have to convince you.

            Well then why in the world does someone like you come around here and suffer being tossed about the intellectual room like a red-headed stepchild’s rag doll? Are you just a glutton for punishment in a public forum? I guess it might be easier when you’re an anonymous skulker on forums beyond your abilities, but still . . . seems odd.

            Anyway, later dude, all the best to you and yours!

          • @sycomputing
            > I think you’re lying. You don’t know a thing about the subject matter.
            Thank you for your kind words, MoeFoe 🙂 But you are wrong. I do know a thing or two, at least I’ve red a few papers unlike you. Well, the papers were about forest fire history reconstructions on specific locations. The methods described would be useless for reconstructing a continent wide history with good spatial and temporal resolution. For that, I guess, they can use borehole samples and ice cores checking for traces of smoke etc and I guess there are tons of other indirect methods but I reckon this is far-far away in resolution (and reliability) from temperature reconstruction.

            Anyway, you were bullshiting about how the reliability of fire history reconstruction should be on par with that of temperature reconstruction. That’s definitely not true, regardless of whether I know ANYTHING about fire history reconstruction or not. ‘Cos the success of the reconstructing a set of variables doesn’t imply a general success for reconstructing others. Illustration: we only know from written sources that the most respected and widespread art from in ancient Greece was panel painting. There are only a handful of actual panel paintings recovered, and this is an era where we have literally tens of thousands of other artifacts. From the archeological remains alone we would have a very distorted view how ancient Greece looked like. I really hope you understand this analogy.

            > Yep that’s the definition of the Ilks of Thee – “I haven’t checked and don’t care!!”
            > Well you sure cared when you said this:
            > “Be careful with the numbers for 2 reasons.”
            > Why do you contradict yourself now?
            ??? Why is this a contradiction? The source you referenced explicitly said the numbers were useless for the only reason you quoted them: comparison. From that point on past numbers were irrelevant and speaking about them would’ve led to endless debates anyway. More interesting is your inability to comprehend the simple thing that we DO have reliable numbers for the last 40 years, and they, incidentally, behave as expected, along with other local even longer term reconstructions (Queensland and Oregon were the specific examples).

            >> No, I don’t have to convince you.
            > Well then why in the world does someone like you
            > come around here and suffer being tossed about
            > the intellectual room like a red-headed stepchild’s rag doll?
            ??? Tossed about? The intellectual room? Huh, you science deniers are ridiculously delusional 😉
            Again, the convincing business is called science, it’s not my duty to do the learning for you, you have to do it yourself. But anyway, in a sense you’re right, I’ve noticed that most of you are beyond redemption. Looking back even a few years there were actual scientists and knowledgeable people writing to these forums trying to give some brains to deniers. Most of them have given it up. Useless. These science deniers’ forums are now living in an alternate reality, in an echo chamber of idiocy. The reason I’m here is that I don’t want to let these idiotic articles and ridiculous assertions go unchallenged ‘cos imagine: someone comes here from the outside looking for answers and they only find bullshit.

          • Nah . . . you haven’t read anything. An actual reader would show it. Nobody comes here and makes such a complete fool of themselves as you’ve done without doing it on purpose.

            You’re just another under-bridge troll dude, that’s what you are – you ain’t even for real.

            You’re busted.

          • @sycomputing
            > Nah . . . you haven’t read anything. An actual reader would show it.
            🙂 You’ve successfully arrived at a completely wrong conclusion. Here is a little bit of reading stuff for you: https://serc.carleton.edu/NZFires/megafires/Yellowstone.html This is introductory material with references. Note, I first read about the Yellowstone reconstructions in the late 80s but I can’t find those specific articles now. They used remains of pine seeds for fire intensity reconstruction.

            > Nobody comes here and makes such a complete fool of …
            You deniers always end up ranting… Could you please at least TRY to stick to the topic? Again, to refresh your memory: woodland fire acreages show definite increase in the United States in the last 40 years (for which we have reliable satellite based data). Anthony quoted an article that he either misunderstood or didn’t care about but it directly contradicted his thesis ‘cos while total burnt area had really decreased, the decrease had been due to reasons unrelated to temperature. Actual fire intensity and extent under comparable conditions HAD increased. You deniers made fool of themselves celebrating this article.

          • Oh just stop dude. You’re busted get over it. You had your fun and now it’s over. Next time don’t play up your Stupid quite as much as you did and maybe you’ll be a bit more believable, okay? Nobody’s going to believe anyone is THAT much of an idiot. You overplayed it that’s all.

            Shoo now . . . move along.

          • @sycomputing
            > Oh just stop dude. You’re busted get over it.
            Good god, you’re ranting again, and at the same time you’re begging for mercy…

          • “Again, the convincing business is called science,”

            Yet you have NONE.. you are basically clueless when it comes to actual science.

            Being bereft of actual science only convinces people you are an idiot.

            STILL WAITING for that real science that shows warming by human released atmospheric CO2.

            YAWN… not going to happen, is it ny. !

        • Wow, you actually believe that people are only scientists when they worship as you do.

          Actual people who visit the actual forests have commented on the build up of fuel in these places. But according to you they are all lying because the models have proven that the fires are caused by climate change. Despite the fact that the climate in the areas where these fires are hasn’t changed.

    • That was an opinion. It is not a scientific statement, a hypothesis, an observation or a fact.

      Blaming climate change in the western US in a scientific way would involve a falsifiable hypothesis – which isn’t here provided. ‘…because of climate change’ how so? when the temperatures or rainfall aren’t showing any significant changes of the order of magnitude to start and maintain fires. Even if they were, correlation does not causation prove. So you’d have to show unequivocally in a scientific statement (which by definition is falsifiable) how these factors actually caused these fires……but on the other hand have we do have a perfectly workable hypothesis, which is falsifiable and thus constitutes a scientific statement, that the intensity and number of these fires is not caused by management practices – we can falsify this hypothesis by changing the management, or observing how much lower the fires were under previous management.

      Indeed this scientific statement has not been falsified. But feel free to have a go. It’s science.

      And by the way, to make something moot, means to make the debate of little relative importance – not to settle the debate

    • Just because it makes sense to you, doesn’t mean it’s actually true. It could also mean that you are incapable of seeing reality.

  18. Ha Ha, laughable to claim that climate change causes the increase in intensity of fires – it can only be increasing fuel loads of bushland. The principle is easily demonstrated by turning on the burner of a gas barbecue. Whoever heard of turning on a gas burner & getting a more intense flame on a hot day as compared to a cold day? To get an intense fire you must have high fuel loads. Even on the hottest day, a low fuel load will produce a low intensity flame. Try it with your gas barbecue one day… I dare you! Our modern age has seen a shift away from understanding the basic practices of fire – fuel is foremost in determining flame intensity. About a century ago, there were far far more cool burns done by Indigenous people. These reduced fuel loads so that fires were low intensity.

    there has been a gradual move away from frequent traditional mosaic cool burning practices of forest & savannah. This move away from cool burning the bush increased dramatically with the climate change movement’s enforcement of carbon sinking, carbon footprints & biodiversity doctrines. The irony is that these doctrines have done more to kill endangered & threatened species, forests & remove carbon from the soil than ever before. We are witnessing fewer fires, but they are of enormous intensity because enormous fuel loads feed them.

    • Our modern age has seen a shift away from understanding *all* basic physical processes. Stop ten people on the street and ask them how their car works. How their air conditioner works. How a thermometer works. Why it is cooler in the shade than in the sun!

  19. Hi there, need to understand that Russia’s wildfire problem began cranking when they drained peatbogs for farming. The dry peat bogs caught fire – they’re very flammable & extremely hard to extinguish. Russia is having shocker fires as a consequence – intense fire breed intense fires through the effect of pyrrocumulus & pyrocumulonimbus (firestorms). These firestorms spread fires by super heating the region, making it windier, drier with updrafts that suck moisture from the soil. These mega fires also spit lightning & embers so the fires spread like a rabbit plague. As these megafires are now regular events, they in fact are causing climate change, not the other way around.

    • “As these megafires are now regular events, they in fact are causing climate change, not the other way around.”
      Interesting comment. Do you think that all that smoke will cause global cooling like happens after major volcanic eruptions?

    • Dr. Findlay,
      Do you have good sources for the peat fires in Russia? I’m very interested because my uncle had a cattle ranch on a reclaimed island in the Sacramento/San Joaquin river delta. Whenever I worked there he always stressed the need to prevent the virtually unstoppable peat fires from getting started, and the need to keep the muskrat population low to hopefully keep them from burrowing in the levees that kept high tide flood waters at bay!
      I have believed since I studied the Russian language in high school that the US and Russia had much more in common than most countries because of our wide ethnic diversity, large geographic area and large reserves of valuable minerals and natural resources. It is truly a shame that we could not have built a closer relationship with Russia as a counterbalance to the Chinese attempts to dominate the world economy, especially since so much of the distrust of all things Russian seems to have been the result of fiction writers and hoaxsters!

      • Hi there I came across the peat bog draining explanation doing a Google search as I was puzzled as to why Russia suddenly started to have such bad fires. It was officially recognised as bona fide information. Think it would be right.

  20. Makes the global warming argument moot
    and brings the California forest maintenance neglect to the forefront.

  21. Why does the data stop in 2015? Would like to see what it looks like now. Where can the most recent data be obtained?

  22. griff, even if things have “changed rapidly” since 2015 — and I don’t know if that even is the case — this represents such a short time period that drawing any conclusions from it is meaningless. Putting it bluntly, your comment reveals nothing more than ignorance and desperation — I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it’s exactly what it reflects.

    The evidence couldn’t be clearer and begs the question why nobody from NASA has raised it. Failing to do so simply highlights the questions around NASA’s integrity.

    • Since 2015, we’ve had Super El Niño of 2015-16 and strong El Niño of 2019-20, with weak La Niña or La Nada in between.

      La Niña might be forming now or in coming months.

      • I thought La Niña was declared last week?

        Seems likely that is all that is required to explain fire season and more active hurricane season, both of which were predicted on this site this year, IF La Niña occurs

  23. From the msm: Newsom alluded to Trump’s visit as he spoke alongside Harris: “If you don’t believe in science, come to California and observe it with your own eyes,” he said. “You cannot be in denial about this reality.”

    • Yes, it is there to see, Cali, Org, and WA have systematically, over the last 4-5 decades, totally screwed up a well functioning forest husbandry system, this has resulted in massive fires due to massive fuel amounts and the restrictions placed on property owners regarding clearing brush/trees away from their structures. Yep, Newsom is right, it is there for all to see.

  24. https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm
    “Humans and Wildfire

    Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson.”

    *Source: 2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive

    • Ah ha! Officials running the show love to blame arson, when in fact once a firestorm starts, it spreads & grows to a firestorm system – first it superheats the region, it makes it windier, the fire’s updraft dries out the soil. Then lightning & embers from the pyro firestorm systems spread the fires.

  25. “noted Randerson, is a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent.”

    ….So number of km² burnt down 25%…… great….but….

    “we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”

    ….So climate change affecting USA but Africa not so much……… ok..

    …..and the decrease in worldwide burning, also climate change?…… no…..thought not.

    …but the USFA says the number of fires are down 2.5% (2009-2018)…….

    https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

    …..so just to be clear there’s not so many, but when there is a fire they’re hotter and spread further….. and it’s climate change that does that…..ok

    • Yes there are now less fires when looking at frequency – these less frequent fires are much much more intense because fuel loads are much much higher. The recent fires in the Snowy Mountains burnt fuel loads of around 200-400 tonnes per hectare. Fuel over 7.5 t/ha burning in extreme conditions is unstoppable. About 100 years ago, there were lots of low intensity fires that kept down fuel loads so there were more fires with only rare problem fires. These more frequent fires were low intensity small fires that could be controlled.

  26. “Less fire is good.” Really?
    one, it may represent destruction of wildlands and forests.
    two, it may represent suppression of natural, brush-clearing fires. Making fewer fires more devastating.
    I came across a reference, stupid but thoughtful, on https://usawatchdog.com that gave a biased view of geo-engineering. It led me to this conclusion:
    Anti-logging and fire-suppression by tree-huggers is, in it’s own way, GeoEngineering.

  27. My uncle is a retired forester. When he was going to school they still taught common sense and scientifically backed management techniques that hasd been used for decades. I remember just 30 years ago driving back from hang gliding on the Oregon Coast and traveling through the coastal range in the middle of the night there were fires burning on both sides of the highway, and no one to be seen for miles. We stopped at a rural gas station/store and asked them about it there. They said that it was nothing to worry about it was forest management to keep things safe during the next fire season.

  28. It’s the intensity game. When more hurricanes didn’t materialize as the “experts” predicted, they went with “but they’re more intense”. So when the global area of wildfires went down, of course came the very predictable “but they’re more intense!”

  29. Anthony,
    Thank you for another interesting post!
    While the alarmists run around with their hair on fire, perhaps igniting some blazes like the Pantifa and Burn, Loot, Murder rioters in the Northwest seem to be doing, it is interesting to see the positive effects of a greening planet on another facet of the climate change debate. I have to wonder if the increased CO2 levels and slight rise in temperatures we have experienced is increasing the precipitation in the Tropics, helping to decrease fires there along with the incorporation of more modern farming techniques.
    One thing seems crystal clear however; the drastic reduction in timber harvesting is directly tied to the increase in Western forest fires! The law signed by Clinton that closed many national forest areas to logging and recreation is responsible for the large increase in fuel load over the last thirty plus years, and the discontinuation of the clearing of logging and forest roads has cut back on access for fire risk assessment and suppression!
    Where I live, in the high desert mountains of the Southwest, forest roads are ubiquitous; perhaps because hunting is such large source of income for both the government and private land holders. That, and the summer monsoons, have kept our fires from burning completely out of control as they seem to be in Washington, Oregon and Commifornia. Of course, any rioters trying to ignite forest fires around these parts would probably meet an unhappy fate from the numerous hunting parties scouting for a trophy bull or buck right now, and would end up as food for the cougars, bears and wolves that are currently keeping a low profile!

  30. For Anthony. What is the normalization (scale) based on? Most of the normalization I have seen the maximum number is set at 1. Sorry but basic stuff.

  31. “This makes the “climate change is worsening wildfires” argument completely moot.”

    No. It does not. It disproves the argument. Moot does not mean false or disproven.

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/moot
    1. moot (adjective)
    a. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: “Whether that was the cause of their troubles is a moot point.”
    b. of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance; purely academic: “In practical terms, the issue of her application is moot because the deadline has passed.”
    2. verb (used with object)
    a. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
    b. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
    3. noun
    a. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
    b. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case.

    Related note. Mute means silent. A moot point is one that is debated. A mute point would result in silence.

  32. If global warming is increasing, and global warming causes wildfires, then why are fires reduced by 25%?

  33. It takes 40 or more years to build up enough fuel for really large hot fires. Once the areas that bad forest management practices have created are burnt off, the number, size, and damage of natural forest fires will decrease. If we are burning 4% of these areas per year, then it takes about 20 years to reduce the badly managed areas enough to see the start of a decrease.

    Controlled burns performed often will keep these areas healthy and less dangerous. Communities that build to high fire-resistant standards will see a decrease in damages. Humans need to ADAPT. Come on humans, we are good at this. This is not rocket science.

  34. Don’t worry guys, Scott Morrison, the Australian PM will save us. And don’t forget to thank all those staunch Aussies who will be paying the highest power prices in the word so that China, America, India and many other countries including most of Europe (as they will default) wont have to bother….of course this is not what the conservatives voted for, we voted in the vain hope of a resumption of intelligent economic policies including building lots of coal fired power stations to power the tattered remains of our industries and homes.
    We will soon lose steel manufacturing and aluminum smelting, they are basically waiting to see “Slo-Mo’s) policies before the decision is made to head for greener pastures….and the stupid bastard cant even bring himself to utter the word “coal.” I am however, not surprised.
    Sick sad world, when the coming Eddy Minimum really begins to bight, I have no doubt that the massive Northern crop failures due to freezing conditions will be caused by……CO2!!!!
    Because as we now all know, up is down, day is night, boys are girls, 2+2=5 and the science is in. Don’t even bother to argue with your privileged mansplaining facts, or we will stand all round you and scream.

Comments are closed.