Why California Wildfires are NOT Climate Driven: A Historical and Meteorological Perspective

The tragic wildfires currently raging in Los Angeles have reignited the predictable chorus blaming climate change for natural disasters. As articles from outlets like Axios, Newsweek, and the BBC demonstrate, there’s a growing tendency to tie every fire, flood, or storm to climate change. However, a closer look at history, meteorology, and land management reveals that these claims are often oversimplified by low-information journalists, and fail to address more immediate, actionable causes.

It’s essential to separate the headlines from the science to understand these wildfires in their proper context. The current fires, like many before them, are largely driven by well-documented weather phenomena, historical land-use patterns, and human decisions—not by a nebulous, all-encompassing narrative of “climate factors.”

Wildfires: A Part of California’s History

California’s relationship with fire predates the Industrial Revolution and certainly modern climate discussions. Historical records and studies consistently demonstrate that large wildfires have been a natural part of the state’s ecosystem for millennia. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the frequency of large wildfires in Southern California has remained relatively consistent over the last century, with human settlement and land management playing a much larger role than global temperature trends (source).

A map of wildfires dating back to 1878 shows that they are endemic to California:

As the Newsweek article points out, fires like the Palisades Fire are often attributed to “climate change,” by media but they rarely pause to acknowledge that human activity—like arson, accidental ignition, or poor land management—frequently sparks these events. Controlled burns, a practice used by Native Americans for centuries, were abandoned with the advent of European settlement. This led to the buildup of dense, fire-prone vegetation. In fact, a major portion of the state’s wildfire problem today stems from these overgrown landscapes, not from incremental changes in global temperatures. For example, a study published by the U.S. Forest Service highlights the significant role of wildfires in the natural ecology of California, with fire-return intervals ranging from decades to centuries, depending on the ecosystem.

Santa Ana Winds: Weather, Not Climate

A critical factor in the Los Angeles wildfires is the role of the infamous Santa Ana winds, which are neither new nor related to climate change. These dry, gusty winds are a recurring weather phenomenon caused by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin that force hot, dry air down through Southern California’s mountain passes. They’ve been a well-documented driver of wildfires for as long as records exist. The Sky News article acknowledges the role of these winds in rapidly spreading the flames, but then pivots to climate change without making a concrete scientific connection.

To clarify: Santa Ana winds are a short-term weather event, not a long-term climate trend. Conflating weather with climate—something the media routinely does—misrepresents the science. Climate refers to patterns observed over decades or centuries, while weather deals with immediate atmospheric conditions. Ignoring this distinction fuels alarmism at the expense of nuanced understanding.

Land Management and Urban Growth

Another overlooked issue is land management. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed dry brush, dead trees, and dense vegetation to accumulate, creating the perfect conditions for catastrophic fires. The Palisades Fire, for instance, was fueled by dense vegetation that had built up over years, according to reports cited by Newsweek.

Urban sprawl into fire-prone areas—the wildland-urban interface—further exacerbates the problem. California has seen a significant increase in housing developments encroaching into areas historically prone to fires. A report from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) highlights how poor planning and a lack of defensible space around structures are key contributors to wildfire destruction (source).

Controlled burns and vegetation management, both inexpensive and effective, are vastly underutilized. Even the BBC article acknowledges that poor land management plays a significant role, although it glosses over this point to focus on climate change narratives.

Media Hype and the Climate Change Narrative

It’s become all too common for the media to frame natural disasters as evidence of an impending climate apocalypse. The Axios, Newsweek, and Sky News articles are prime examples of this trend. While they acknowledge weather and land-use factors in passing, their focus inevitably returns to vague, unsupported claims about “climate factors.”

The problem with this approach is that it misleads the public and policymakers alike. By blaming wildfires primarily on climate change, we risk ignoring the more immediate, solvable issues at hand. The media’s fixation on climate change as a universal scapegoat leaves critical factors like land management, urban planning, and fire prevention under-discussed.

The Danger of Misguided Policies

Blaming wildfires on climate change makes for dramatic headlines, but it distracts from practical solutions. For instance, California’s increasing reliance on renewable energy mandates and electric vehicles might help lower emissions over time, but they do little to address the state’s wildfire risks today. Worse, these policies often divert resources from pressing issues like fire prevention and infrastructure improvements.

A report by the Little Hoover Commission emphasizes the urgent need for better forest management practices, including thinning dense forests and conducting prescribed burns. Yet these solutions are frequently ignored in favor of policies that sound good politically but fail to address the root causes of wildfire devastation.

Conclusion: Facts Over Fear

California’s wildfires are tragic, but they are not unprecedented. Historical fire records, the role of Santa Ana winds, and the impacts of poor land management reveal a much more complex picture than the climate change narrative suggests. As the Sky News and Newsweek articles inadvertently highlight, there are many proximate causes of wildfires that demand our attention—causes that have little or nothing to do with global climate trends.

The rush to attribute every fire to climate change oversimplifies the issue and distracts from actionable solutions. Improving forest management, enforcing defensible space requirements, and addressing urban sprawl into fire-prone areas are steps we can take today.

It is crucial to separate hype from reality. These fires are not proof of a climate crisis but a reminder of the importance of thoughtful land management and disaster preparedness. Let’s focus on solutions grounded in science, history, and practicality—not fear.

4.8 97 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Boles
January 8, 2025 10:07 am

Look at that area in satellite view, when houses are built so close to each other, much like dominoes, when one goes it is a chain reaction.

Scissor
Reply to  J Boles
January 8, 2025 10:24 am

Yes, that’s a good reason to have spacing between structures.

Prior to this fire, the major of LA reduced its fire department budget by $millions but made diversity in the department a priority. Surprisingly, fire fighting has been hampered by hydrants having no water in Palisades at least. The mayor is currently in Ghana to attend and celebrate its presidential inauguration.

mal
Reply to  Scissor
January 8, 2025 12:35 pm

In fire prone areas houses should be 100ft apart, ditto for anything flammable vegetation, if you have grass is should be short. Funny the childhood home in a small town I grew up in followed those rules and the sloughs and grassland that came up to the property did burn fairly often, without any problems.

Giving_Cat
Reply to  J Boles
January 8, 2025 10:51 am

The Los Angeles Metro by far the densest Metro in the US. When people think and complain Los Angeles is “sprawling” they are wrong.

Mr.
January 8, 2025 10:16 am

Another example of the UN-virtuous circle of miscreants involving the monetized / weaponized “science” of climate change + crony capitalism + agenda-driven MSM.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
January 8, 2025 10:54 am

Crony capitalism is what the socialists call it when the government is used to pick who wins and loses. The rest of us call that socialism.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2025 11:41 am

I regard crony capitalism as the other end of the spectrum of fascism.

It’s where instead of the government taking control of privately owned enterprises that supply governments with services & products (fascism), c.c. involves private interests taking control of services & supplies to government departments.

Of course, in both cases, unmarked envelopes. tickets etc for bureaucrats, enablers & politicians are rife.

NGOs / Foundations / Not-For-Profit Charities are often the vehicles used as the “bagman” for crony capitalism operations.

Someone
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2025 2:13 pm

Mark, you can call things whatever you want, it is freedom of speech after all. I think the most essential feature of socialism is abolishment of private ownership of means of production, when they are owned by the government. This is order of magnitude worse than crony capitalism which is corrupted capitalism, but still is capitalism.

Reply to  Someone
January 8, 2025 9:34 pm

‘I think the most essential feature of socialism is abolishment of private ownership of means of production, when they are owned by the government.’

No. The common denominator of all forms of socialism is government direction of the use of property, whether that property is publicly or privately owned.

jshotsky
January 8, 2025 10:20 am

When I left San Bernardino in Oct, 1970, there were fires on both sides of I10 (near Riverside, etc) and when I got onto I5, it was closed due to fire. I took the route to Santa Barbara, and they closed it while I was on it. I was driving through smoke and sparks, but made it through. This was during the time of ‘The Coming Ice Age”…

Rud Istvan
January 8, 2025 10:42 am

Mayor Bass cut the LAFD budget $20 million, with Zero for brush control.
Mayor Bass installed a new fire chief whose top priority is DEI.
Self inflicted Pacific Palisades wound.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 8, 2025 12:12 pm

In their weird reality, the solution is to take money and then fake getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere – a combination of mental midgetry, criminality and perhaps even manslaughter.

Curious George
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 8, 2025 12:21 pm

Reminds me of an old French comedy movie. General: I devised an ingenious plan to confuse the enemy. I moved my right wing into the center, my center to the left wing, and the left wing to the right wing. Fantastic success! Twenty thousand dead!

MarkW
January 8, 2025 10:44 am

It’s essential to separate the headlines from the science to understand these wildfires in their proper context.

We’re the federales, we don’t need no stinkin context.

January 8, 2025 10:45 am

Ryan Maue posted on X a week ago today about the likelihood of Santa Ana winds in SoCal.

“Risk for strong Santa Ana wind event across parched and dry Southern California next Tues / Wed as high pressure builds across Great Basin and Rockies.”

https://x.com/RyanMaue/status/1874458233534050737

Were CA authorities asleep at the switch? Were there any pre-emptive measures in the last few days against depletion of water supplies, etc.?

Scissor
Reply to  David Dibbell
January 8, 2025 11:03 am

Asleep at switch, yes. Pre-emptive measures, no. I’ve seen this movie before.

Reply to  David Dibbell
January 9, 2025 9:51 am

For years now (decades?) CA’s “pre-emptive measures” were to not clear dead brush to preserve habitat and divert water from reservoirs to save a little fish (delta Smelt?).
A more recent measure was the LA mayor cutting funding to the fire department.
In California all of that is called “progress”.

cc
Reply to  David Dibbell
January 9, 2025 10:26 am

It was clearly reported that the office of Mayor Bass was told of the impending powerful Santa Ana winds before she boarded the airplane to go to Ghana, and then was forced to come back with tail between her legs to *take charge* after thousands of homes in the city were consumed in a day.

It’s worth looking for the SkyNews interview on the jetway when she stands stone silent as a reporter questions her about why she was gone abroad and if she feels sorry for her leadership. She stood silent for over 2 solid minutes and then slinked away. Two hours later she put on a happy face at an official press conference at city hall.

Mac
January 8, 2025 10:46 am

We lived in Topanga Canyon from the early 80’s to mid 90’s directly adjacent to Topanga State park. Early in those years the park had goat pens and a goat herder who daily would herd the goats out to manage the brush. That program ended and I remember a few attempts at controlled burns; one in particular getting out of hand due to winds; it was fairly quickly brought under control.
The brush of course has high oil and resin content and burns very quickly.
We could walk to the top of the hill behind the house and view the Palisades and a great deal of LA.
I remember seeing a fire start across the canyon started by a metal bladed weed eater sparking a fire which was only controlled by water bombers.
The canyon was evacuated at least once during our living there.
One fire north out Malibu Canyon was caused by a youngster igniting the fire which destroyed the old Mash television set and then went over the hill towards the ocean destroying a significant number of houses in Malibu.
So fires are common and also torrential rains and floods and of course mudslides.
The SA winds are also regularly seen driving fires.
Santa Barbara also had catastrophic fires a few years ago.
I’m wondering now if Topanga Cyn might be affected?
Anthony is right these fires have been going on for thousands of years.

Reply to  Mac
January 8, 2025 12:22 pm

A poster named Nelson, on the CIA Cooling thread, said that he had done a project on time series analysis for the California fires. If you’re still around Mr or Dr Nelson, any further comment?

Mac
January 8, 2025 10:48 am

I had a patient in the 80’s who was a developer and built 1500 homes in the Palisades.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mac
January 8, 2025 12:06 pm

I could never be a doctor, no patients.

Tom Halla
January 8, 2025 11:18 am

One does have CARB affecting controlled burns as air pollution, and various green NGOs blocking any land clearing for whatever reason they are using that day. And feckless politicians who made the appointments to CARB, and never ever push back on the greens.

January 8, 2025 11:23 am

Anthony

You should prepare a shorter version of this post and send it to the LA Times for publication on Op-Ed page. You might also say: For more information about wildfires, global warming, and climate change go to: https://wattsupwiththat.com.

If everybody learned of this website, all this nonsense about greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and climate change would vanish overnight.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 8, 2025 1:30 pm
Reply to  macha
January 8, 2025 2:20 pm

I’ve been in eucalypt forests on a hot day where the scent of eucalyptus oil is almost overpowering, and you can literally see the wavy lines of convecting oils in the air.

The lemon-scented ones are particularly nice.

Just don’t strike a match !

Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
January 8, 2025 6:32 pm

Schlieren lines.

Reply to  Scissor
January 8, 2025 7:06 pm

But visible without a special camera. 🙂

Graeme4
Reply to  macha
January 8, 2025 3:23 pm

Australian Eucalypt trees drop litter at the high rate of 8.5 tonnes/hectare or 9600 pounds/acre, but only 29% decomposes in a year. Thus it doesn’t take long before the fuel load builds up to a level where any wildfire will be almost impossible to stop – this occurs after a fuel load of around 20-30 tonnes/hectare. Cool burns of around 10% of a forest are required to maintain the fuel load at reasonable levels. Unfortunately, most Australian states only cool burn 2-3% every year, so the litter builds up to up to dangerous levels, and disastrous bushfires occur.

Reply to  Graeme4
January 8, 2025 3:59 pm

You can see the bush opposite my place.. probably classed as dry Eucalypt scrub.

Area is about 150ha of Aboriginal reserve, which links into about 500+ha of National Park

The main problem is not so much the leaf and bark litter, but the dry grass and scrub undergrowth.

The parts to the left of the pole were burn-off three years ago, you can see all the new eucalypt and wattle sapling that are growing.

Smoke in the air.. I immediately find out where it is on the NSW fire map.

House is BAL29 rated and well back from the road.. hopefully that will be enough when the inevitable bushfire happens.

(Click on image to expand)

bush
Graeme4
Reply to  bnice2000
January 9, 2025 2:40 am

Not sure if a road provides much clearance for a eucalypt fire. Its well-known that these fires can jump large gaps, and the embers can travel much further.

old cocky
Reply to  Graeme4
January 9, 2025 5:49 pm

Yeah, try to keep the grass green. More importantly, keep the gutters clear and preferably block the downpipes and fill the gutters with water if there are fires in the area.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 8, 2025 2:26 pm

Good luck with you submission.

You should check out the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting Greenhouse” available at: http://www.John-Daly.com.
From the home page scroll down to the end and click on:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on region or country to obtain charts of the plots of temperature from the weather stations there.

Shown below is a chart of plots of temperatures at the famous Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv (0.595 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.729 g of CO2/cu. m.), but here was no corresponding increase in temperature of the air in this arid desert. The reason there was no increase in air temperature is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorbed IR light.

The charts of plots of temperatures from the many stations show there was no global warming up to ca. 2002. Check out the charts for Australia, especially Boda Island.

Presently, the concentration of CO2 at the MLO in dry air is 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this dry air contains a mere 0.835 g of CO2 per cubic meter and has mass of 1.29 kg at STP.

It would be of interest to obtain temperature data for Death Valley from 2002 to 2024. Only annual average temperature need be plotted. If there is no increase in temperature, this is additional empirical temperature data that CO2 does not cause warming of air.

death-vy
Mr Ed
January 8, 2025 11:30 am

A wildland interface such as in CA requires that structures have an area
cleared of fuel around them. Also it’s the ember wash that ignites a structure
before the flames hit in most situations. Things like screens on roof vents
can make a huge difference. The brush which grows in that area is very flammable
and needs constant management, goats are known to be very effective for that.
A swimming pool with a gasoline pump feeding a wildfire sprinkler system has proven to be effective in a wildfire for structure protection. Dr Jack Cohen’s work shown here=====>

Scissor
Reply to  Mr Ed
January 8, 2025 12:29 pm

Good video, thanks.

Reply to  Mr Ed
January 8, 2025 1:49 pm

Important advice..

I wonder about the fire proofing of the houses. On the video I have seen, the houses look as combustible as the scrub.

Mr Ed
Reply to  RickWill
January 8, 2025 6:45 pm

I did study years ago on this and there was large wildfire north of LA that
burned hundreds of homes. There was one that was not burned that was a
spanish style. It was a stick frame type but they put waterproof sheet rock on
the exterior then several coats of stucco. The roof also had the waterproof
sheet rock and it had a tile roof. Some of the features used in my area is fiber
cement siding, soffits and fascia. On the soffit the vents are screened with a fine
stainless screen and they are placed down near the fascia not up next to the siding.
The embers in a fire hit the siding and rise up and if there is a vent in a normal
spot they go straight into the attic. But down lower the ambers fly away. Wildfire foam
is used a lot in this area on windows. I have fixed on a wood deck some landscape
sprinkler nozzles every 8ft, low volume/pressure they are 10R , 10ft diameter and full
circle….Hurricane shutters are also used on some houses..

Reply to  Mr Ed
January 8, 2025 2:51 pm

There is another overlooked reason roofs and foliage catch on fire: rubber particles and dust from tires. These act as fire accelerants.

I ask this simple question: Since 1900, where have the many billion pounds of rubber particles and dust gone. The answer is anywhere and everywhere. How much does this rubber pollution contribute to global warming?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Harold Pierce
January 8, 2025 6:52 pm

And guess what kind of automobile makes the most rubber dust?

Hint it does use fossil fuels.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 8, 2025 7:15 pm

18 wheeler trucks!

John Hultquist
January 8, 2025 11:33 am

Street view in Google Earth can show houses surrounded by fuel; trees and other landscape plants. The concept of “Firewise” seems not to have crossed into CA.
Defensible Space – Prepare Your Home | WA – DNR

Dave O.
January 8, 2025 12:08 pm

Never underestimate the extent of eco terrorist arson in all of this.

J Boles
Reply to  Dave O.
January 8, 2025 12:31 pm

A few have been caught in recent years, but you know others are not caught. Fires cannot just start by themselves, it is usually people, by accident or on purpose.

malrob
Reply to  J Boles
January 8, 2025 2:11 pm

Is it not the case that the only natural causes of ignition are lightning strikes, volcanoes and asteroid strikes? Surely all others are human influenced, accident stupidity or arson.

Reply to  malrob
January 8, 2025 2:22 pm

Broken bottles have been traced as a source in some fires.

malrob
Reply to  bnice2000
January 8, 2025 6:17 pm

Broken bottles are a human construct.

Reply to  malrob
January 8, 2025 7:08 pm

Yes, There are probably several other not so obvious ones, like compost stacks etc.

Reply to  bnice2000
January 9, 2025 4:12 am

Not true.

Someone
Reply to  J Boles
January 8, 2025 2:21 pm

They can start by themselves, it happens in nature due to lightening.

Scissor
Reply to  Dave O.
January 8, 2025 12:32 pm

Apparently, they know the address of where the initial brush fire began. They probably know what started that fire but I haven’t seen it reported yet.

Scissor
Reply to  Dave O.
January 9, 2025 8:38 am
January 8, 2025 1:18 pm

CO2 induced climate change is the universal scape goat for incompetence. China is now the dominant source of all the world’s ills. How many people actually believe the world will be a better place if China stops burning coal? Where will all the modern stuff be made when China shuts down its manufacturing?

mleskovarsocalrrcom
Reply to  RickWill
January 8, 2025 1:28 pm

“Where will all the modern stuff be made when China shuts down its manufacturing?” You forgot the /sarc tag. The goal of AGW is to defeat Capitalism by crippling industry in Western/Democratic countries.

Reply to  RickWill
January 8, 2025 3:23 pm

CO2 can cause only a little global warming and climate change, because there little CO2
in the air. Presently, one cubic meter of air at 20 deg. C contains mere 0.777 g of CO2.
In air at 20 deg. C and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O IS 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 11.9 g of H2O. The amount of the greenhouse effect (GHE)
due to H2O is given by:

GHE = moles H2O/moles H20+moles CO2 = 0.661/0.661+0.0178 = 0.97 or 97%

Keep in mind that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with H2O and wind is the major force for transporting H2O out of the oceans and land surface waters into air on to the land.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Harold Pierce
January 9, 2025 2:18 am

Harold:

“In air at 20 deg C and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O IS 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 11.9 g of H2O”

The atmosphere is not at 20C all the way up to the Tropopause.
It has a DALR of 9.8C/km
And (as you know) the WV holding ability of cold air is sig reduced.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html

So the maximum WV carrying cap. of air at -20C is ~ 1 gr – so 70% rel hum is ~0.7 grams.

A big difference to ~12 grams

At 30 °C The percentage of WV is 4.24% 
But
At -42 °C The percentage of WV is 0.01%
400x less !

This is important because …
The GHE is most has greatest effect over the north pole (antarctica is that cold in the high interior to actually give an inverse GHE at extreme). 
And in dry descending air FI at ~ 30 deg N/S as the air aloft from the ITCZ converges and descends.

So you cannot apply your reasoning to the total of Earth’s GHE.

And for whatever reason DV did not respond to warming until post 1999, it has since:

comment image

Derg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
January 9, 2025 2:49 am

indeed, global warming has nothing to do with population explosion since the 70s. Ignore the burgeoning homes, roads, skyscrapers, airports, blacktop…. 😉

Reply to  Derg
January 9, 2025 3:47 am

How does population growth explain the concurrent rise in air temperature above the oceans and throughout the lower troposphere?

Derg
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 9, 2025 10:30 am

How does the CO2 control knob 😉

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Derg
January 9, 2025 7:34 am

It is accounted for in the various world compilations of the data … as USCRN proves in the US.

The Earth is 71% ocean – and no UHI out there.
Also, why is it increasing at such a rate.
Are the “burgeoning homes, roads, skyscrapers, airports, blacktop…” increasingly really exploding that much !?
It’s all a coincidence, that it coincides with the RF of CO2/CH4/N2O since it overtook the -ve RF of aerosols from the 80’s … and BTW it is now thought that this last spike has been caused in some large part by the reduction of sulphates in shipping fuel ….

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-shipping-emissions-reduction-temperature-spike.html

Oh, and UHI operating in Death Valley?
Really?

January 8, 2025 1:27 pm

Santa Anna winds, https://www.surfertoday.com/windsurfing/the-most-famous-winds-of-the-world, are katabatic-type winds. As dense cool air descends from the high CA desert, it warms by compression. Everywhere on the planet, when air descends, it warms as it is compressed, just as rising air cools adiabatically. It is nothing but the simple physics of the ideal gas in the atmosphere acting under the force of gravity in the hydrostatic equation.

Curious George
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 8, 2025 2:27 pm

HARD TO BELIEVE – you MUST be a genius 🙂

Reply to  Curious George
January 8, 2025 3:13 pm

No, just a former surfer.

January 8, 2025 1:36 pm

“A report by the Little Hoover Commission emphasizes…”

That link doesn’t work.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 8, 2025 6:21 pm

Sounds good- I think 95% of all forest in North America should be managed. Most are not.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 9, 2025 3:01 am

That will be some project, considering the vast area involved.

old cocky
Reply to  Anthony Banton
January 9, 2025 5:52 pm

Being able to sell timber off it works wonders.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 8, 2025 3:34 pm

Neither does the link to US Forest service study

There is, or was, an excellent video produced by the US Geological Service on YouTube that showed how fire management practices by homeowners in the southern CA hills around LA actually made the wildfires worse but I don’t seem to have a link

January 8, 2025 2:00 pm

Don’t the sequoias need fire for reproduction?
They are pyrophytes, and the evolution needs some time to develop new features, so fire can’t be new to the region, in contrast, as long as evolution needs, at least.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 8, 2025 2:26 pm

Same with a lot of Australian bush plants. They need heat or smoke to germinate.

Eucalypts, Banksia, Melaleuca (tea tree), Wattle etc

Smoke Germination of Australian Plants – Australian Native Plants Society (Australia)

Alfred T Mahan
January 8, 2025 2:20 pm

The BBC lunchtime tv news today featured a “climate correspondent” or some such creature, who inevitably said there was no doubt the fires were caused by climate change. Utter blinkered rubbish. No balance whatsoever. For once, I actually wrote in to complain.

Scissor
Reply to  J Boles
January 8, 2025 6:45 pm

Incredible numbers of “homeless” related fires in LA county, ~14,000 in 2023.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/la-homeless-encampment-fires-electrical-supply-wires/3408775/

Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 2:30 pm

This article misses the main point

Up to 90% of fires are manmade.
Almost always accidental
Sometimes arson

A small increase of winter temperatures from global warming is not causing people to accidentally start more fires. There is no logical connection

Every year CA vegetation gets dry enough to be good fuel for fires. A small amount of global warming can not make already dry vegetation any drier.

The lack of forest management increases the intensity of fires but does not start fires.

The number of fires in CA should correlate with the number of people living in CA and the number of homes located near forests, which are both increasing.

CA population in 1950 was 10.6 million
CA population January 1, 2024 was 39.1 million
There are 28.5 million more people living in CA who could accidentally start a forest fire.
Maybe people are more careful these days.

The larger size of forest fores is because of poor forest management

This 2018 article was interesting:

The Sordid History of Forest Service Fire Data

The Sordid History of Forest Service Fire Data – The Antiplanner

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 2:49 pm

No, nothing you mentioned is missing in the article.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 2:58 pm

By the way
My research into the accuracy of US acres burned data, summarized well in the article at the link above, was used in my comment at Tony Heller’s website. Heller got angry at contrary data to his and permanently banned me from future comments at his website.

I was banned from commenting at the Ron Clutz Science Matters climate website in Canada for merely objecting to his false claim that CO2 does not cause global warming (the usual temperature always leads CO2 and CO2 is 97% natural claptrap)

There are other conservative websites that will not publish a comment that refutes a point made in an article no matter how polite you are. Complement the article and you do get published. Leftists are not the only people who do censorship.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 3:35 pm

You know Richard, after a while of the same nitpicking of blog hosts’ articles, many just think “oh it’s that nitpicker pest again trying to demonstrate his self-accorded superior knowledge about anything and everything”, so they just don’t feel the need to respond to your jibes any more.

I mean, it’s not as if you practise the arts of tempered literary diplomacy or anything, matey.

And as the lawyers, accountants, financial advisers are wont to say –
“This is not advice. Only you can decide to adopt or reject these observations.”

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 3:40 pm

I have had posts disappear from a number of “skeptical” oriented blogs without any notice to me. These posts involved pointing to contrary data about something claimed by the thread or even just asking questions about how the conclusions related to other valid data or published studies.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 3:43 pm

The claim that “CO2 does not cause warming” is totally correct.

Actual physics and the action of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly shows that.

You still haven’t produce one single bit of empirical scientific evidence that it does, despite being asked to, many times.

I bet all you did when you visited those sites was mouth-off as usual…

… producing zero evidence to back up your anti-science opinions.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
January 9, 2025 7:57 am

“You still haven’t produce one single bit of empirical scientific evidence that it does, despite being asked to, many times.”

As I’ve said to you “many times”.
The world’s scientific conclusion on the subject for this last ~150 years has reached a point where it is “settled” and if it was presented to you (and it is) and you actually read and understood it, you would never accept anyway. A closed mind.
Like most *sceptics*, you readily jump on board any *sceptically* developed pseudo-science (there have been dozens on here … so which one is it? or is it all of them).
There you go baby – double down, quadruple down even, and state all pseudo-scientific “theories” invalidate the GHE !

You apply double standards (hypocricy) in calling bollocks like the linked study as being correct, while parroting this ….
“Please show the evidence of CO2 warming”.
As a reply to every post that informed peeps make here.
Spelled out for the hard of groking (as prob the above is to wordy for you) …

You do not except any evidence of the GHE – and there is tons of it.
Yet you pounce on the linked study as “proof”.
This double-standards in most peeps book.
Your personal “proof” is only that that fits your ideological mindset.
And it is empirically and logically beyond wrong.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
January 9, 2025 11:04 am

THE EVOLUTION OF CLIMATE
BY
C. E. P. BROOKS,
M.Sc., F.R.A.I., F.R.Met.Soc.
WITH A PREFACE BY
G. C. SIMPSON, D.Sc., F.R.S.,
DIRECTOR OF THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE
LONDON: BENN BROTHERS, LIMITED
8 BOUVERIE STREET, E.C.4
1922

“The theory which connects fluctuations of climate on a geological scale with changes in the composition of the earth’s atmosphere is due to Tyndall and Arrhenius, and was elaborated by Chamberlin. The theory supposed that the earth’s temperature is maintained by the “blanketing” effect of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This acts like the glass of a greenhouse, allowing the sun’s rays to enter unhindered, but absorbing the heat radiated from the earth’s surface and returning some of it to the earth instead of letting it pass through to be lost in space. Consequently, any diminution in the amount of carbon dioxide present would cause the earth to radiate away its heat more freely, so reducing its temperature. But it is now known that the terrestrial radiation which this gas is capable of absorbing is taken up equally readily by water-vapour, of which there is always sufficient present, and variations of carbon dioxide cannot have any appreciable effect.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72714/pg72714-images.html

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 5:04 pm

ATTN: RG

At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mere 0.835 g of CO2 and a mass of 1.29 kg at STP. In air at 70 deg F and with 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 11.9 g of H2O, 0.777g of CO2 and a mass of 1.20 kg.

To first approximation and all things being equal, the amount of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O is given by:

GHE = moles H2O/moles H2O+moles CO2 = 0.66/0.66+0.019 = 0.97 or 97%

The above calculation assumes a molecule of H2O and a molecule of CO2 each absorb about the same amount of IR energy. Actually H2O absorbs more IR energy than CO2.

H2O is the major greenhouse gas by far and CO2 is a minor trace greenhouse gas. Keep in mind that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with H20 and the wind is the major force that transports H2O from out of the oceans into the air and on to land.

I saw on the TV news that a massive winter storm is sweeping across the US. We don’t to worry about a slight global warming but always about cold winters.

Here in Burnaby, BC it is 5 deg. C and the carbon tax is $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Would you be willing to pay a hefty carbon tax on fossil fuels to save the planet?

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 5:19 pm

Nobody banned you because of any contrary data.

If anybody bans you it is because you are overtly and purposely obnoxious.

(I am self-banning from your website until you re-establish the soft porn link.)

Mr.
Reply to  DonM
January 8, 2025 5:30 pm

🙂 🙂 🙂

That THAT’S an honest position!

Would that we could get that from all the climate caterwaulers.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 6:39 pm

permanently banned me

I was banned from

Even though you are such a good communicator! Shocking! Lol.

Scissor
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 6:57 pm

If you wanted to post on Heller’s site again, I’d suggest talking to Tony to find common ground. In verbal dialogue, he is very reasonable and cordial. On his site, he is irascible.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 9, 2025 4:14 am

You provided data ?? 😀
That’s new 😀

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 3:36 pm

There are 28.5 million more people living in CA who could accidentally start a forest fire.”

Except that most of them probably never go anywhere near a forest !

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 8, 2025 6:35 pm

This article misses the main point

Up to 90% of fires are manmade.

It is you who misses the point – as usual.
Whether man made or natural, the more fire now the less fire in the future.
If these ”man made” fires were not started (and of course they should not be because they can devastate properties) it is only a matter of time before a dry lightning strike will start an unstoppable inferno feeding on all the fuel that would not be there had no previous fires gone through.
We have no option but to put out fires now but that does not change the fact that doing that compounds the problem for future generations.
The fuel load here in Eucalypt forests increases by 10 tonnes/hectare/year, and without a fire to clean it up, that’s every year!
So blaming the problem on ignition from humans is, in the end, as helpful as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Groggy Sailor
January 8, 2025 2:31 pm

I own a second home in the Colorado mountains surrounded by tall Colorado Blue Spruce and Ponderosa Pine trees and I love it.

I also realize that like so much of nature it’s beautiful until it catches fire. 🤔

Bob
January 8, 2025 3:22 pm

Very nice Anthony. Blaming natural disasters on climate change is really easy to understand. If climate change is responsible that lets government and feckless NGOs off the hook. Of course they blame climate change that way they don’t have to answer for their disastrous policies and recommendations. They are cowards, liars and cheats.

Mr.
Reply to  Bob
January 8, 2025 3:44 pm

Too true Bob.
And as you know, in Australia various ideological state governments and greenie municipal councils set about deliberately closing access tracks in bushland parks and ceasing seasonal preventive cool burn-offs.

Then when the inevitable conflagrations happened, the politicians and bureaucrats stood in front of the media and spouted their “all due to climate change” bullshit.

And the dumbo media just nods their uninquisitive heads at it all.

Curious George
Reply to  Bob
January 8, 2025 5:43 pm

I happen to believe in ice ages, so I believe in climate change.
Progressives want to keep one single climate, as God created it.

Alan
January 8, 2025 3:23 pm

I’m currently having a “discussion” with a guy on Facebook. He actually said these fires are the fault of the fossil fuels industry. Because there’s never been a wildfire in January!
He claims to be a retired IT tech from the state of California.

Jim Mundy
January 8, 2025 10:32 pm

It should also be noted that entire ecosystems in California, notably the Coastal Redwoods and the Sequoias, have evolved specifically to take advantage of fire — it clears the underbrush and opens the cones, dropping the seeds and giving them a better chance to grow. Given the fact that some of the living trees are thousands of years old, and that they were already adapted when they sprouted, I’d say there is ample evidence that wildfires have been a factor in California for a very long time, and through several episodes of climate change.

Richard Saumarez
January 9, 2025 2:33 am

A sensible post by an expert.

Verified by MonsterInsights