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.
This appears to be a case of the naturalistic fallacy. Additionally, the article cites that the predicted cause of the fires is decreased moisture content in the fuel, not abundance of the fuel due to firefighting efforts.
This page  gives a decent overview of the US history in my opinion.
In short - no fires may be better than some weak fires, for certain utility functions. Unfortunately, no fires + time + not cleaning forests = huge fires, which are far worse than either.
Again, what you're saying, while possibly true and if true probably accounted for, isn't necessarily relevant, as climate change by itself is a sufficient explanation of this phenomenon.
I don't know how well we could generalize this - but IIRC that's likely the case with this summer's fires in Siberia too; couldn't find much about wildfire causes in the US though.
a very small amount of fire is bad, because it also isn't possible, it leads to large fire later which is bad
too much fire is bad because obviously fire is bad
Goldilocks just right fire is good
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.
Maybe years are either very calm or have lots of fires? That would result in some years being much worse than the average.
There were 13832 forest fires in Portugal alone in 2008. The avg in this chart seems far less than that...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong?
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.
"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.
(Talking about Poland here)