We have all heard about the planet is warming, but so slow it takes decades to notice it. Sea level goes up by 3 mm a year, not an effect which you can spot at the beach. Yes, more storms more floods more droughts.....

But was not warned about was fires.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5y60307r0pt

Fires in Spain and France have seen 270,000 people evacuated as of Saturday. Yes fires did happen in France and Spain before, but they used to measure their extent in hectares, these are in square kilometres. These major fires are a new phenomenon, occurring in places in which major fires were rare. In Canada a few days ago over 1,000 forest fires were burning, many out of control, Enough to send massive clouds of smoke across half of the USA.

This has only really started to happen more frequently over the last decade. There have also been massive fires in Siberia in recent years, previously nearly unheard of.

A large part of the Northern hemisphere temperate zone is covered in forests or grasslands - far more than the Southern hemisphere. When average temperatures rise, evaporation increases, land dries more quickly, fire risk increases. When grasslands/heathlands catch fire, they can recover within a few years usually. Most forests will take decades. The fires are now more intense, so fewer trees survive. And when forests burn, they release a lot of CO2. Which means, of course, more CO2 in the atmosphere, and more warming.... and then more fires. Forests are already under pressure from tree cutting and clearance for agriculture, this could mean that forests will decline even faster. WE were told that one way to offset CO2 emissions was to plant trees, not much point if they catch fire. Soon much of the developed world will look more like North Africa. Savanah, grasslands and desert. A few trees, but few forests.

General warming and sea level rise are problems more for the future, but fires are a problem NOW.

Their are other problems that happen with climate change, but we do not know for certain when they will happen, could be hundreds of years. But could be sooner.... Failure of AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation), decomposition of methane hydrates, collapse of coral reefs.

So climate change is more to worry about than just a little warming and a slowly rising sea level.

I do not believe there were no warnings that wildfires would escalate.

However, I wrote a post in the other wildfire thread about forests, wildlife, and livestock, which I can contribute here instead.

The real problem today is that much of Thailand’s original forest has disappeared or become fragmented. Humid evergreen rainforest is not naturally adapted to frequent fire and normally resists it because it stays moist. But during severe drought, or after logging and other human disturbance, even rainforest can burn. Once it has burned, the forest becomes more open and dry, making future fires more likely.

Thailand also has naturally drier forests that have adapted to periodic fires. These forests do not normally burn completely down during low intensity fires, and fire can be part of their natural cycle. However, fires that are too frequent or intense can still damage the forest and prevent it from recovering.

Another factor, both in Thailand and Europe, is changing land use and reduced grazing in some areas. Livestock such as goats, sheep, and cattle can reduce grass, shrubs, and other vegetation that would otherwise become fuel. This is especially relevant in parts of Spain, Portugal, and France, where abandoned farmland and reduced grazing can allow vegetation to build up.

Wild animals such as deer, wild cattle, wild goats, and elephants also shape vegetation, but their influence is more complicated and varies between ecosystems. Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and hunting can disrupt these natural processes.

Edited July 25Jul 25 by Hummin

I asked Google AI the following question.

"Is there any evidence that the recent fires in France and Spain are partially due to arson and other human activities?"

The answer:

"Yes, there is clear evidence that human activity, including both deliberate arson and negligence, is responsible for triggering many of the massive wildfires currently devastating France and Spain. While climate change, record-breaking heatwaves up to 43°C, and severe droughts have turned the landscape into a tinderbox, human action provides the initial spark in the vast majority of cases.

Data from France's Ministry of Agriculture indicates that 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by human activity, usually due to negligence rather than malice."

This situation is yet another example of the generally misdirected alarm about human caused climate change. For example, we build houses in flood plains, that the historical record shows have flooded every 25 to 30 years in the past, then blame the next flood on 'human caused' climate change because the damage to property is more extreme than in the past when there were fewer houses, or no houses at all in the same location.

The difference between before and now is the news...

4 minutes ago, khunPer said:

The difference between before and now is the news...

We’re living in an era of hysterics and a state of perpetual “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” Though only half is true.

3 hours ago, khunPer said:

The difference between before and now is the news...

Both graphs can be true at the same time. The U.S. graph shows that much larger areas burned in the early 1900s than today, partly because of land clearing, logging, agricultural burning, limited fire control, and less reliable historical records. The global decline is largely driven by fewer savanna fires in Africa, which accounts for around 70% of the world’s burned area. That does not mean forest fires are declining everywhere. Regional trends differ because climate, land use, vegetation, and fire management all play a role. Wildfires also receive more attention today because more people and homes are located in fire prone areas, making the consequences greater.

I asked AI about the graphs

This graphic is based on a real finding, but it needs context.

The left graph refers to global burned area, largely from NASA satellite observations. Several studies have indeed found that the total percentage of Earth’s land burned each year declined between about 2000 and 2022, mainly because there has been less burning of tropical savannas and grasslands in Africa, where large seasonal fires have become less common due to agriculture, land use changes, and fragmentation.

However, this does not mean wildfire risk has decreased everywhere.

For example:

• Globally: Total burned area has declined.

• Boreal forests (Canada, Siberia): Burned area has increased in many recent years.

• Mediterranean Europe: Average burned area has generally declined thanks to better fire management, but extreme fire seasons still occur.

• Western United States: Large forest fires have become more common and severe in recent decades.

So both of these statements can be true at the same time:

• The world, overall, burns less area than it did around 2000.

• Some regions are experiencing larger or more severe forest fires than before.

The right graph about media coverage is a separate issue. News coverage of wildfires has clearly increased, but that does not by itself prove that concern is exaggerated. It only shows that media attention has increased faster than global burned area.

So if someone uses this image to claim “there is no wildfire problem,” that goes too far. If they use it to say “global burned area has declined despite more media attention,” that is broadly supported by the satellite data.

For Africa alone, one satellite study found that burned area declined by about 18.5% between 2002 and 2016. The decline was strongest in the northern half of sub Saharan Africa.

That matters because Africa accounts for roughly 70% of the world’s burned area, mostly from recurring savanna and grassland fires. So a relatively modest decline in Africa can pull the global total down strongly.

Another major study found global burned area fell by about 24% from 1998 to 2015, with much of that decline coming from African savannas as farming expanded, landscapes became more fragmented, and fewer large areas were burned.

So the graph is not wrong, but it can be misleading. Much of the global decline comes from fewer savanna fires in Africa. It does not mean that dangerous forest fires are declining everywhere. In fact, fires in some African tropical forest regions increased between 2003 and 2021.

3 hours ago, novacova said:

We’re living in an era of hysterics and a state of perpetual “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” Though only half is true.

It is understandable that many people think the world is going under. There seems to be very little responsibility, not among the average population and not among many of our leaders, to preserve our planet as a good and healthy home for everyone. With nuclear threats and a warming climate, it feels like we are closer to midnight than ever. Even though I try to stay positive, I am happy I do not have any offspring to worry about.

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It is understandable that many people think the world is going under. There seems to be very little responsibility, not among the average population and not among many of our leaders, to preserve our planet as a good and healthy home for everyone. With nuclear threats and a warming climate, it feels like we are closer to midnight than ever. Even though I try to stay positive, I am happy I do not have any offspring to worry about.

Complete hysterics by those who don’t understand the overwhelming force of nature above anything that humans can produce.

That's ok. Trump will fix it. A 50% tariff on countries that have fires because they didn't rake their forests is obviously the answer.

10 minutes ago, novacova said:

Complete hysterics by those who don’t understand the overwhelming force of nature above anything that humans can produce.

Nature is overwhelmingly powerful, but that does not mean humans are powerless or harmless. We cannot create hurricanes or volcanoes, but we can change the climate, destroy ecosystems, pollute oceans, and increase the damage caused by natural events. Recognising that is not hysteria, it is reality.

"This has only really started to happen more frequently over the last decade. There have also been massive fires in Siberia in recent years, previously nearly unheard of."

More to do with the mentally ill, non-whites, homeless all being allowed to roam and start fires in the western world. Diversity is our doom!

In China they would just be shot in the head ....... so it doesn't happen there.

Edited July 26Jul 26 by BritManToo

17 hours ago, Hummin said:

I do not believe there were no warnings that wildfires would escalate.

However, I wrote a post in the other wildfire thread about forests, wildlife, and livestock, which I can contribute here instead.

The real problem today is that much of Thailand’s original forest has disappeared or become fragmented. Humid evergreen rainforest is not naturally adapted to frequent fire and normally resists it because it stays moist. But during severe drought, or after logging and other human disturbance, even rainforest can burn. Once it has burned, the forest becomes more open and dry, making future fires more likely.

Thailand also has naturally drier forests that have adapted to periodic fires. These forests do not normally burn completely down during low intensity fires, and fire can be part of their natural cycle. However, fires that are too frequent or intense can still damage the forest and prevent it from recovering.

Another factor, both in Thailand and Europe, is changing land use and reduced grazing in some areas. Livestock such as goats, sheep, and cattle can reduce grass, shrubs, and other vegetation that would otherwise become fuel. This is especially relevant in parts of Spain, Portugal, and France, where abandoned farmland and reduced grazing can allow vegetation to build up.

Wild animals such as deer, wild cattle, wild goats, and elephants also shape vegetation, but their influence is more complicated and varies between ecosystems. Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and hunting can disrupt these natural processes.

Yes, Thailand is vulverable. So if the Amazon due to rapacious logging. Are we all going to have to buy oxygen rebreathers or gas masks to deal with the smoke? Those damned, ignorant Canadians!

6 hours ago, khunPer said:

The difference between before and now is the news...

Newssubscription service

Okay, I'll bite. Why were wildfires so severe in 1928?

3 hours ago, novacova said:

Complete hysterics by those who don’t understand the overwhelming force of nature above anything that humans can produce.

It's humans who have goaded nature into fighting back. We'll lose that fight.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Nature is overwhelmingly powerful, but that does not mean humans are powerless or harmless. We cannot create hurricanes or volcanoes, but we can change the climate, destroy ecosystems, pollute oceans, and increase the damage caused by natural events. Recognising that is not hysteria, it is reality.

I thought Communists were controlling the hurricanes! There's real evidence on Trump's whiteboard.

There is another thing that hasen't made it into the headlines.

- The thawing of the Permafrost. There, there is more CO2 stored than is currently already in the athmosphere. If that is eventually released into the athmosphere, then it's strictly "good night Matilda". Most of it will be in form of Methane, 20 times worse than CO2.

- Gulf Stream slowing. If it stops, northern Europe will be as cold as Quebec (same latitude).

3 minutes ago, swissie said:

There is another thing that hasen't made it into the headlines.

- The thawing of the Permafrost. There, there is more CO2 stored than is currently already in the athmosphere. If that is eventually released into the athmosphere, then it's strictly "good night Matilda". Most of it will be in form of Methane, 20 times worse than CO2.

- Gulf Stream slowing. If it stops, northern Europe will be as cold as Quebec (same latitude).

Interesting fact.....Saturn's moon Titan, has so much methane that there isn't enough oxygen on Earth to burn it all.

You're welcome.

13 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Interesting fact.....Saturn's moon Titan, has so much methane that there isn't enough oxygen on Earth to burn it all.

You're welcome.

Good to know. I have already started to replace oxygen with breathing methane by hanging my head over a cesspool. Progress is slow, I am getting dizzy in the early stages. But having visions by Elon Musk visiting me and proclaiming "this is the future". <deleted> oxygen.

Just now, swissie said:

Good to know. I have already started to replace oxygen with breathing methane by hanging my head over a cesspool. Progress is slow, I am getting dizzy in the early stages. But having visions by Elon Musk visiting me and proclaiming "this is the future". <deleted> oxygen.

Wow.....I'm going to give that a go......although with three septic tanks in the garden I guess I might be doing it already....5555

35 minutes ago, swissie said:

There is another thing that hasen't made it into the headlines.

- The thawing of the Permafrost. There, there is more CO2 stored than is currently already in the athmosphere. If that is eventually released into the athmosphere, then it's strictly "good night Matilda". Most of it will be in form of Methane, 20 times worse than CO2.

- Gulf Stream slowing. If it stops, northern Europe will be as cold as Quebec (same latitude).

The thawing of permafrost, how many times do you suppose that has happened? There has been five maybe six measurable ice ages over the past some odd three billion years with about thirty glacial-interglacial cycles, and tens of dozens of glacial advances and retreats in the current major glacial cycle.

Hysterical climate nuts simply thrive on fear and are terrified of death, which of course, death is part of the cycle on this planet. What ever the next major natural event is that the earth will experience, instantaneously or over a long period, it doubtful that much of the human population will survive, if any. Anyway, enjoy your fearfulness.

Edited July 26Jul 26 by novacova

46 minutes ago, novacova said:

The thawing of permafrost, how many times do you suppose that has happened? There has been five maybe six measurable ice ages over the past some odd three billion years with about thirty glacial-interglacial cycles, and tens of dozens of glacial advances and retreats in the current major glacial cycle.

Hysterical climate nuts simply thrive on fear and are terrified of death, which of course, death is part of the cycle on this planet. What ever the next major natural event is that the earth will experience, instantaneously or over a long period, it doubtful that much of the human population will survive, if any. Anyway, enjoy your fearfulness.

Everything you said above is absulutely correct.

But this time around, WE are heating up the planet. What took 10 thousand years before, we manage to do this within a few decades. That's the difference.

Apes in paradise that managed to destroy their paradise by their own doing. Remarkable.

1 hour ago, swissie said:

Good to know. I have already started to replace oxygen with breathing methane by hanging my head over a cesspool

You mean visiting AN daily ?

23 hours ago, rickudon said:

But was not warned about was fires.

Absolutely, increased devastating forest fires were predicted decades ago.

Why is this?

Rainfall increases, due to higher water vapor content in the atmospherre.

BUT, the ground and vegetation still becomes drier, due to .....

Higher temperatures

Increasing rates of evaporation

Desertification.

Also, it is possible, due to increasing global ground temperature that....

The ENTIRE AMAZON could catch fire.

That would be a perfect time for a WEENIE ROAST....

Global average temperatures need to rise by 1.5°C to 1.9°C above pre-industrial levels to push the Amazon toward a critical tipping point of widespread drying, dieback, and severe fire risk, provided current deforestation continues. [1]

Temperature and Deforestation Thresholds

• Combined Threat: Research published in Nature shows that if deforestation reaches 22% to 28% (the Amazon is currently at roughly 17% to 18% loss), global warming of 1.5°C to 1.9°C will trigger self-amplifying drought and fire cascades across up to 77% of the basin.

• Warming Alone: In a theoretical scenario with zero additional deforestation, the critical global warming threshold required to destabilize large parts of the Amazon jumps much higher, to about 3.7°C to 4.0°C.

• Current Trajectory: Long-term global warming has already surpassed roughly 1.3°C, meaning the lower combined threshold of 1.5°C is imminent or being actively tested by short-term climate overshoots, making local moisture loss and logging the decisive factors.

ANYWAY: Please do not tell me that NOBODY WARNED you, this time....

15 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Okay, I'll bite. Why were wildfires so severe in 1928?

NaturalDisasters

Google says, when asked "why were American wildfires so severe in 1928?":

American wildfires and total acreage burned were exceptionally high during the late 1920s and 1928 due to a combination of severe regional dry spells, accumulated timber debris from historical logging, and early federal policies that were just beginning to grapple with large-scale fire containment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Contributing Factors

• Prolonged Drought: The 1920s experienced significant decadal peaks in dry conditions across North American climate divisions, drastically lowering moisture levels in forest undergrowth. [1]

• Logging Debris ("Slash"): Decades of extensive timber harvesting left behind massive amounts of dry tree tops, limbs, and dead organic waste that acted as ready-made tinder. [1, 2, 3]

• Evolving Suppression Policies: The U.S. Forest Service struggled with balancing active fire prevention versus controlled light burning, establishing strict caps (such as suppressing fires over 10 acres in 1926) before moving toward total suppression mandates in the 1930s. [1]

If you're interested, I can also share details on:

• How annual acreage burned in the 1920s compares to modern fire seasons

• The specific regional policies enacted by the U.S. Forest Service during this decade

22 hours ago, novacova said:

We’re living in an era of hysterics and a state of perpetual “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” Though only half is true.

A religious movement proclaimed this for little more than 100 years ago and said that 1914 (WWI) was the beginning — other sects have also later proclaimed: “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” — the last part about "die" is true enough, we all are sooner or later.

55 minutes ago, khunPer said:

A religious movement proclaimed this for little more than 100 years ago and said that 1914 (WWI) was the beginning — other sects have also later proclaimed: “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” — the last part about "die" is true enough, we all are sooner or later.

Human nature is a product of nature, a force on a trajectory that has already been written in the design of nature as with any living species, as with the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe all of which have individual characteristics that differ, no two trees of the same species are identically patterned and no two galaxies are identically patterned. Two objects with similar characteristics have different outcomes, yet by nature, are on a trajectory designed by nature that cannot be changed except by nature itself. The human mind is finite and by nature instinctively rationalizes for survival, science is on a mission of survival against nature, the ultimate authority of any outcome, that of which of whatever human activity produces is ultimately a product of nature which has already had a design outcome. No doubt similar planets with similar life forms have and do exist with their own uniqueness on a trajectory designed by nature as with two trees growing next to each other in a forest, one will succumb to pathogens and the other will be blown down by the wind.

17 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It's humans who have goaded nature into fighting back. We'll lose that fight.

Nature doesn’t fight back. It’s humans that are fighting to reconcile with nature.

21 hours ago, swissie said:

There is another thing that hasen't made it into the headlines.

- The thawing of the Permafrost. There, there is more CO2 stored than is currently already in the athmosphere. If that is eventually released into the athmosphere, then it's strictly "good night Matilda". Most of it will be in form of Methane, 20 times worse than CO2.

- Gulf Stream slowing. If it stops, northern Europe will be as cold as Quebec (same latitude).

We've all heard to tire fires--burn for decades. If the peat bogs catch fire in Scotland, no more single malt.

21 hours ago, swissie said:

There is another thing that hasen't made it into the headlines.

- The thawing of the Permafrost. There, there is more CO2 stored than is currently already in the athmosphere. If that is eventually released into the athmosphere, then it's strictly "good night Matilda". Most of it will be in form of Methane, 20 times worse than CO2.

- Gulf Stream slowing. If it stops, northern Europe will be as cold as Quebec (same latitude).

I thought it was the reversal, not slowing, of the Atlantic Current. Perhaps the slowing is getting ready for the reversal. Yikes--bunny hills in the UK.

21 hours ago, khunPer said:

A religious movement proclaimed this for little more than 100 years ago and said that 1914 (WWI) was the beginning — other sects have also later proclaimed: “The World is Going to End, We’re All Going To Die!” — the last part about "die" is true enough, we all are sooner or later.

But, we don't have to be suicide bombers...