
There have been three times more wildfires in the EU so far this year - reddotX
https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/15/there-have-been-three-times-more-wildfires-in-the-eu-so-far-this-year
======
war1025
General reminder that fires are a part of the natural order of things, and if
anything we've put too much effort into suppressing them.

Fire allows new growth, cuts down on disease, and gives the soil access to
nutrients.

It also consumes fuel, meaning subsequent burns won't be as large. When you
tamp down all naturally occurring fires, you set yourself up for an out of
control blaze later on.

~~~
lucb1e
That sounds sensible, but what would a natural fire be caused by?

A droplet of water focusing the sunlight onto a point below it is the only
thing I can think of, but then there is cooling water right on top of it, and
as soon as that begins to evaporate the focus also disappears.

Edit: ah yes of course, lightning. Thanks everyone.

~~~
jhiesey
Lightning is a major natural cause.

------
jfries
It's disingenuous to compare a single year vs an average like this, without
going into what the distribution looks like.

Maybe years are either very calm or have lots of fires? That would result in
some years being much worse than the average.

~~~
liberte82
Also, statistically, it's likely that in any given year, there will be some
place in the world that is anomalous. You can't just pick and choose certain
areas, going to a different spot each year, as evidence of a problem, you need
to look at things globally.

------
itcrowd
There is a glitch in both charts on mobile (FF and chrome). For example, the
first chart shows >2100 cumulative forest fires (contrary to ~1650 in the
text). The value in the chart that appears if you click the data point is
correct.

------
thtthings
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

~~~
lucb1e
I agree that this headline (data from a single year presented as a new trend)
is useless at best or maybe even misleading (I haven't upvoted it), but from
your comment, it sounds a bit like you are not convinced we are causing the
climate to be changed. Not sure if that is the message you mean to convey.

~~~
thtthings
I am not an idiot. Of course we are causing climate to change for the worse. I
don't trust everyone out there though. Most scientist and media people have a
self serving attitude. They just want clicks

~~~
lucb1e
> I am not an idiot.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were. It just sounded like a denialist might
have written it (or might not, depending on the real intention), so I figured
it might be helpful for you to know that, at least to me, it can be read both
ways.

------
kleiba
Meanwhile, this has been one of the coldest and rainiest Augusts in Central
Europe for a number of years.

~~~
lucb1e
I think the point is "extreme weather" rather than just "it's hotter now". The
1° average warming that we're currently at (or whatever the latest estimate
is) won't suddenly set forests ablaze.

~~~
sgc
I would to start seeing data analysis which charts how increases in
temperature center (or don't) on certain extreme periods each year. 3-10 day
stretches of extreme heat, cold, flooding, etc are devastating to many living
organisms, and, as global warming kicks into gear, we should be tracking and
publicly discussing biologically significant weather events and their trends
and directly - rather than just hottest day, month, year. It's a good cross
discipline area for biologists, geologists, and meteorologists to cooperate.
When there is a major heat wave, the biological impact to the ecosystem,
beyond the immediate impacts on humans in the moment, should be front page
news.

~~~
esotericn
Agree. I commented on a similar topic about flooding in this vein.

"It's 2c hotter" really sounds very benign to most people, I couldn't tell you
what that would even feel like (do I know the difference between 25c and
27c?).

Extreme variance (and feedback loops) are far more problematic.

