Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Look at the context here though - the climate change discussion thread.

If this were a "weather events" thread - I would agree that there's no implication of a tie-in between the big France wildfire spike, and I wouldn't have made my point about having to look at the bigger picture.   

But since this is in fact a climate change discussion thread, and since there are lots of assertions out there that CC causes increase in wildfire activity - it seems reasonable that there's an assertion of implied tie-in with that set of stats that was posted; vis a vis France's big spike in wildfires being due to CC.   My point then of course being that no - it's not due to CC (the context of the thread), it's due to a localized weather event (and possibly other factors such as bad fire control management).

The extreme heat was more the focus of climate change in my post, which merely noted that France was "wildfire-swept." At least for now, my understanding is that the connection between climate change and extreme heatwaves is stronger than the more complex linkage between climate change and wildfires. Nevertheless, there is a fairly prominent link.

Since my initial post, World Weather Attribution (WWA) has published a rapid attribution report. Consistent with the expectations from a growing body of scientific literature, including one Nature piece talking about the future that I posted, climate change contributed. Excerpts:

In Spain, January 2026 was the wettest January of the last quarter of a century (AEMET, 2026). In particular, in the area affected by the Ávila–Madrid–Toledo fire, rainfall was 175% higher than usual, which allowed a great accumulation of plant biomass. The summer of 2026 began with record-breaking temperatures and a severe drought, both conditions exacerbated by human-caused climate change (WWA, 2026a; WWA, 2026b). This sequence resulted in high fuel loads that then dried to become highly flammable, increasing the intensity of the fires...

In 2025, WWA conducted two rapid attribution studies on fires in Spain and Portugal (WWA, 2025a) and Turkiye, Cyprus and Greece (WWA, 2025b), alongside a retrospective analysis of the entire wildfire season in several European regions (Keeping et al., 2026b). Across all three studies, we found that human-caused climate change was a key driver of the fire weather conditions, primarily through its influence on exceptionally high temperatures, but also by exacerbating drought conditions...

The weeks leading up to the fires were characterised by a succession of extreme heatwaves and low rainfall across much of Western Europe, despite it still being comparably early in the season. Recent studies have shown human-caused climate change increased the likelihood of these hot and dry antecedent conditions, which were essential for the development of the extreme fire weather that enabled the fires...

In both study regions observations show strong trends of increasing likelihood and severity with global warming. DSR7x values as extreme as those observed in central Spain in July 2026 are now at least 20 times more likely than in a pre-industrial climate. In the French regions the statistical model fits the data less closely and may underestimate the return period of the event, thus the result of an increase in likelihood by at least a factor two in southwest France is a conservative estimate...

A recent attribution study has shown that climate change is increasing the likelihood of severe soil moisture drought through higher atmospheric evaporative demand, while the same sequence of above-average winter rainfall followed by exceptional spring drying was identified as a key driver of the 2025 Iberian wildfires. 

Finally, the WWA rapid attribution report cites and links to a fairly large number of papers on fire weather in Europe, many of which have relevance to the impact of climate change.

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The extreme heat was more the focus of climate change in my post, which merely noted that France was "wildfire-swept." At least for now, my understanding is that the connection between climate change and extreme heatwaves is stronger than the more complex linkage between climate change and wildfires. Nevertheless, there is a fairly prominent link.

Since my initial post, World Weather Attribution (WWA) has published a rapid attribution report. Consistent with the expectations from a growing body of scientific literature, including one Nature piece talking about the future that I posted, climate change contributed. Excerpts:

In Spain, January 2026 was the wettest January of the last quarter of a century (AEMET, 2026). In particular, in the area affected by the Ávila–Madrid–Toledo fire, rainfall was 175% higher than usual, which allowed a great accumulation of plant biomass. The summer of 2026 began with record-breaking temperatures and a severe drought, both conditions exacerbated by human-caused climate change (WWA, 2026a; WWA, 2026b). This sequence resulted in high fuel loads that then dried to become highly flammable, increasing the intensity of the fires...

In 2025, WWA conducted two rapid attribution studies on fires in Spain and Portugal (WWA, 2025a) and Turkiye, Cyprus and Greece (WWA, 2025b), alongside a retrospective analysis of the entire wildfire season in several European regions (Keeping et al., 2026b). Across all three studies, we found that human-caused climate change was a key driver of the fire weather conditions, primarily through its influence on exceptionally high temperatures, but also by exacerbating drought conditions...

The weeks leading up to the fires were characterised by a succession of extreme heatwaves and low rainfall across much of Western Europe, despite it still being comparably early in the season. Recent studies have shown human-caused climate change increased the likelihood of these hot and dry antecedent conditions, which were essential for the development of the extreme fire weather that enabled the fires...

In both study regions observations show strong trends of increasing likelihood and severity with global warming. DSR7x values as extreme as those observed in central Spain in July 2026 are now at least 20 times more likely than in a pre-industrial climate. In the French regions the statistical model fits the data less closely and may underestimate the return period of the event, thus the result of an increase in likelihood by at least a factor two in southwest France is a conservative estimate...

A recent attribution study has shown that climate change is increasing the likelihood of severe soil moisture drought through higher atmospheric evaporative demand, while the same sequence of above-average winter rainfall followed by exceptional spring drying was identified as a key driver of the 2025 Iberian wildfires. 

Finally, the WWA rapid attribution report cites and links to a fairly large number of papers on fire weather in Europe, many of which have relevance to the impact of climate change.

Climate change affects different places differently which is why I like this term better than global warming. For this region the warming is more in the winter.  This isn't just about 1936 either or even Central Park bad siting. 1966 still holds the heat records for both LGA and JFK 107 and 104. I'd argue that 107 at LGA from July 1966 is more impressive than the 108 at Newark from July 2011. And big heat domes aren't a new thing, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2002 had plenty of them. It's why I consider the 1980s and 1990s to be hotter especially ranked by duration of heat waves and number of 100 degree days. 1993 is still untouched in that regard.

We can even go back to 1911 to see a heat dome as bad as 1936.  JULY 2-4 that year Mt Pocono hit 98 99 and 103 on consecutive days and since then has never been higher than 95. I thought that might have been some instrument error but Boston recorded their all time high of 104 during that same torrid stretch.

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Climate change affects different places differently which is why I like this term better than global warming. For this region the warming is more in the winter.  This isn't just about 1936 either or even Central Park bad siting. 1966 still holds the heat records for both LGA and JFK 107 and 104. I'd argue that 107 at LGA from July 1966 is more impressive than the 108 at Newark from July 2011. And big heat domes aren't a new thing, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2002 had plenty of them. It's why I consider the 1980s and 1990s to be hotter especially ranked by duration of heat waves and number of 100 degree days. 1993 is still untouched in that regard.

We can even go back to 1911 to see a heat dome as bad as 1936.  JULY 2-4 that year Mt Pocono hit 98 99 and 103 on consecutive days and since then has never been higher than 95. I thought that might have been some instrument error but Boston recorded their all time high of 104 during that same torrid stretch.

Heat domes aren't new. But the warming background climate has made even relatively ordinary heat domes much hotter than they were decades ago. Regional patterns coupled with a wetter climate has likely contributed to the recent absence of long-duration heatwaves in parts of the Northeast. 

[rclab]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Climate change affects different places differently which is why I like this term better than global warming. For this region the warming is more in the winter.  This isn't just about 1936 either or even Central Park bad siting. 1966 still holds the heat records for both LGA and JFK 107 and 104. I'd argue that 107 at LGA from July 1966 is more impressive than the 108 at Newark from July 2011. And big heat domes aren't a new thing, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2002 had plenty of them. It's why I consider the 1980s and 1990s to be hotter especially ranked by duration of heat waves and number of 100 degree days. 1993 is still untouched in that regard.

We can even go back to 1911 to see a heat dome as bad as 1936.  JULY 2-4 that year Mt Pocono hit 98 99 and 103 on consecutive days and since then has never been higher than 95. I thought that might have been some instrument error but Boston recorded their all time high of 104 during that same torrid stretch.

I was hoping to read a post from you again before I transition. Stay well, you’re already blessed. As always …..

 

[GaWx]

Opinions about this, which shows lowest cumulative YTD burnt area as of July 1st in Americas since at least 2012?@donsutherland1@WolfStock1

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Opinions about this, which shows lowest cumulative YTD burnt area as of July 1st in Americas since at least 2012?@donsutherland1@WolfStock1

The map is dated. Nevertheless, winter fire activity in South America has so far been largely suppressed by a wetter to much wetter than normal start to winter. The U.S. has seen a fairly sizable pickup in fire activity in late July. 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The map is dated. Nevertheless, winter fire activity in South America has so far been largely suppressed by a wetter to much wetter than normal start to winter. The U.S. has seen a fairly sizable pickup in fire activity in late July. 

Yeah, Don, I just looked at the following, which is as of Aug 1. It tells me that whereas Aug 1st is NN for NA, SA is MBN. Projecting from Aug 1 to EOY gets NA to ~2012-25 avg but SA is headed for MBN when projected.

 July added only ~4 mill ha in Americas vs avg of ~8 due to wet SA thus putting Aug 1st even further behind than Jul 1st:

[donsutherland1]

Denver has quietly reached and then surpassed 40 90° or above days. What was once an uncommon event has now become routine in the warming climate. Through August 2, 2026, Denver has had 41 such days. During 1872-1999, Denver saw 40 or more such days about once every 7.5 years. Since 2000, such years have occurred once every 1.2 years. Eleven of the last 12 years have seen 40 or more such days.

 

[GaWx]

 I just found an up to date (July 29th) source of worldwide burnt acreage in 2026 vs 2012-25:

 I don’t want to minimize how terrible these fires are wherever they occur and also I realize there’s CC contribution to these though it’s pretty complex. However, it just so happens that the two lowest years of year to date burnt world acreage since 2012 as of week 30 (~July 29th) are none other than 2026 (lowest with 112 million ha) and 2025 (2nd lowest with 131). The remainder are way up at 162-216. The avg of 2012-25 is 193. Thus, 2026 is a whopping 81 million ha below the 2012-25 week 30 world avg!

 I’m guessing it’s probably caused largely by more favorable wx (some combo of wetter (like in S America) as well as fewer lightning strikes, lower temps, and/or lighter winds in dry areas), fewer arsonists, and/or better firefighting:

 

@donsutherland1@WolfStock1

[LibertyBell]

On 8/1/2026 at 8:09 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Heat domes aren't new. But the warming background climate has made even relatively ordinary heat domes much hotter than they were decades ago. Regional patterns coupled with a wetter climate has likely contributed to the recent absence of long-duration heatwaves in parts of the Northeast. 

Don't look at these crazy records from 1911 103 at Mt Pocono is a sea level adjusted equivalent temperature of 114!! Outside of those 3 days in 1911 Mt Pocono hasn't been hotter than 95!! Five of the top ten are from 1911 including one in May! What was happening that year?

In that same torrid stretch Newark hit 103 and Boston hit their all time high of 104 and it even topped 100 in the Green and White Mountains!!

https://recordtemps.in/mount-pocono-pennsylvania

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Denver has quietly reached and then surpassed 40 90° or above days. What was once an uncommon event has now become routine in the warming climate. Through August 2, 2026, Denver has had 41 such days. During 1872-1999, Denver saw 40 or more such days about once every 7.5 years. Since 2000, such years have occurred once every 1.2 years. Eleven of the last 12 years have seen 40 or more such days.

 

I think we will see that kind of summer here next year although our rate of 90 degree temperatures is not rising anywhere nearly as quickly.

[bluewave]

https://thetradeoff.substack.com/p/the-wildfire-climate-change-burn?r=1q3cpv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

 

The Wildfire-Climate Change Burn Area Paradox

Climate Change is making wildfires worse, but global wildfire burn area is declining

 

RYAN KATZ-ROSENE

AUG 03, 2026

 

Consider the following two statements about global wildfires from two high-level scientific reviews on the matter:

“Overall, climate change is exerting a pervasive upwards pressure on fire globally by increasing the frequency and intensity of fire weather, and this upwards pressure will escalate with each increment of global warming.” (From Jones et al. 2022)

AND 

“Since the early 2000s, global burn area has declined by roughly one-quarter, driven mainly by reductions in the area burned by fires in African savannahs linked to landscape fragmentation and changes in the distribution of rainfall” (From Kelley et al. 2025).

What?! Are wildfires getting worse, or is the situation getting better? What can we expect going forward - more burn area globally as a result of a warming planet, or lessin concert with the present trend? This post wades into this apparent paradox and reasserts the idea that both the present and the future of wildfire burn area is highly linked to anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, global burn area is declining, but it’s uneven regionally

 

Globally, burn area from fires is indeed showing a robust declining trend over the last two decades. Some regions, however, have seen a pronounced increase over this period (especially boreal forest ecosystems). The longer term trends, as shown in the figure below, vary substantially from one model and dataset to the next, but generally speaking the story is that northern remote areas (especially boreal forest ecosystems and northern peatlands) are seeing an increase in recent decades, and tropical areas - especially in Africa’s savannah areas - have seen a decrease.

Why is this happening? The specifics are complex, but the general explanation can be found in major expansions in agricultural development in Africa, which have helped drive “significant declines [in burn area] in African savannahs… despite significant increases in fire weather, and especially extreme fire weather, in the region.” This is, after all, savannah-grasslands account for more than half of global burn area, and so a significant reduction in that biome has a pronounced effect on the global totals.

 

[Torchageddon]

On 8/2/2026 at 10:28 PM, LibertyBell said:

Don't look at these crazy records from 1911 103 at Mt Pocono is a sea level adjusted equivalent temperature of 114!! Outside of those 3 days in 1911 Mt Pocono hasn't been hotter than 95!! Five of the top ten are from 1911 including one in May! What was happening that year?

In that same torrid stretch Newark hit 103 and Boston hit their all time high of 104 and it even topped 100 in the Green and White Mountains!!

https://recordtemps.in/mount-pocono-pennsylvania

I found out about 1911's insanity a number of years ago when I saw just like what you mentioned out of this world temps in late spring here, IIRC much of May that year was a torchageddon of intense heatwaves. There were multi-day values over 95F along the shoreline in ON and I have no clue how all that came together. We were nearly at 100F before the mid part of May. As for the rest of the season it was an inferno just endless heatwaves til mid-late Sept. I got pretty excited when on here the late Roger Smith mentioned 1911 as an analogue to summer 2012! 

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, Torchageddon said:

I found out about 1911's insanity a number of years ago when I saw just like what you mentioned out of this world temps in late spring here, IIRC much of May that year was a torchageddon of intense heatwaves. There were multi-day values over 95F along the shoreline in ON and I have no clue how all that came together. We were nearly at 100F before the mid part of May. As for the rest of the season it was an inferno just endless heatwaves til mid-late Sept. I got pretty excited when on here the late Roger Smith mentioned 1911 as an analogue to summer 2012! 

This 11 year cycle thing really intrigues me although 1911 was on a whole other level even compared to that. I wonder if the sun went through some explosive phase that year.

It's useful to remember the vast majority of heat in our solar system originates from the sun. Any changes even a slight change will have magnified consequences downstream.

 

RIP Roger

[LibertyBell]

On 8/1/2026 at 8:28 AM, rclab said:

I was hoping to read a post from you again before I transition. Stay well, you’re already blessed. As always …..

 

I appreciate the sentiment but i hope you outlast me My Friend.

 

[GaWx]

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

https://thetradeoff.substack.com/p/the-wildfire-climate-change-burn?r=1q3cpv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

 

The Wildfire-Climate Change Burn Area Paradox

Climate Change is making wildfires worse, but global wildfire burn area is declining

 

RYAN KATZ-ROSENE

AUG 03, 2026

 

Consider the following two statements about global wildfires from two high-level scientific reviews on the matter:

“Overall, climate change is exerting a pervasive upwards pressure on fire globally by increasing the frequency and intensity of fire weather, and this upwards pressure will escalate with each increment of global warming.” (From Jones et al. 2022)

AND 

“Since the early 2000s, global burn area has declined by roughly one-quarter, driven mainly by reductions in the area burned by fires in African savannahs linked to landscape fragmentation and changes in the distribution of rainfall” (From Kelley et al. 2025).

What?! Are wildfires getting worse, or is the situation getting better? What can we expect going forward - more burn area globally as a result of a warming planet, or lessin concert with the present trend? This post wades into this apparent paradox and reasserts the idea that both the present and the future of wildfire burn area is highly linked to anthropogenic climate change.

 

Yes, global burn area is declining, but it’s uneven regionally

 

Globally, burn area from fires is indeed showing a robust declining trend over the last two decades. Some regions, however, have seen a pronounced increase over this period (especially boreal forest ecosystems). The longer term trends, as shown in the figure below, vary substantially from one model and dataset to the next, but generally speaking the story is that northern remote areas (especially boreal forest ecosystems and northern peatlands) are seeing an increase in recent decades, and tropical areas - especially in Africa’s savannah areas - have seen a decrease.

Why is this happening? The specifics are complex, but the general explanation can be found in major expansions in agricultural development in Africa, which have helped drive “significant declines [in burn area] in African savannahs… despite significant increases in fire weather, and especially extreme fire weather, in the region.” This is, after all, savannah-grasslands account for more than half of global burn area, and so a significant reduction in that biome has a pronounced effect on the global totals.

 

“Satellite data tracking shows that Earth's boreal forests have expanded in total area by about 12% (roughly 0.844 million square kilometers) and shifted northward as a result of warming temperatures.”

https://science.nasa.gov/missions/landsat/boreal-forests-are-shifting-north/

 This is a positive result from CC. Not all results of CC are bad. The overall greening of the globe is obviously a good thing even though it can also lead to increased wildfires due to increased potential fuel. And this being a carbon sink is helpful.

 The positive effects of CC are often minimized and thus there should be a more balanced presentation of its overall effects even if the net overall effect isn’t positive, which is where I’ve been leaning largely because of my concern about rising sea levels. Of course the future rate of sea level rise is a huge unknown and nobody knows how bad it actually will get.

[bluewave]

9 minutes ago, GaWx said:

“Satellite data tracking shows that Earth's boreal forests have expanded in total area by about 12% (roughly 0.844 million square kilometers) and shifted northward as a result of warming temperatures.”

https://science.nasa.gov/missions/landsat/boreal-forests-are-shifting-north/

 This is a positive result from CC. Not all results of CC are bad. The overall greening of the globe is obviously a good thing even though it can also lead to increased wildfires due to increased potential fuel. And this being a carbon sink is helpful.

 The positive effects of CC are often minimized and thus there should be a more balanced presentation of its overall effects even if the net overall effect isn’t positive.

The issue at hand is the expansion of wildfires in the boreal and other forests. Places like Canada  have seen both national and regional record fire activity increase due to the warmer and drier conditions. The recent record fire in Ontario produced the record smoke from the Great Lakes to the Northeast. I don’t count that as a positive. 

[GaWx]

4 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The issue at hand is the expansion of wildfires in the boreal and other forests. Places like Canada  have seen both national and regional record fire activity increase due to the warmer and drier conditions. The recent record fire in Ontario produced the record smoke from the Great Lakes to the Northeast. I don’t count that as a positive. 

I’m referring to the increase in boreal forests and the overall increased green areas of the globe as being a positive spect of CC, not the increased fires themselves.

[bluewave]

6 minutes ago, GaWx said:

I’m referring to the increase in boreal forests and the overall increased green areas of the globe as being a positive spect of CC, not the increased fires themselves.

The expansion of the boreal forests into the tundra raises another set of issues.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/boreal-trees-are-spreading-into-the-arctic-tundra-405025

In an increasingly warmer world, the Arctic tundra is becoming more forestlike. This process, known as borealization, is particularly widespread in Eurasia and in Arctic mountain regions, where the distance to the boreal (northern) forest is shorter. Many species of grasses and shrubs that can live in both the tundra and the forest are gaining ground in the tundra. This is shown by a new large-scale study of 1,100 sampling sites across the entire Arctic biome.

Consequences

“If this trend continues, it could have a number of consequences. For example, it could accelerate the melting of the permafrost or change the seasonal migration of reindeer. It could also affect the traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, who rely on hunting, reindeer herding, and gathering plants as a part of their subsistence and cultural practice,” says Robert Björk, a researcher on Arctic ecosystems at the University of Gothenburg.

When shrubs and other tree-like species expand, they trap more snow in winter and cover the ground in summer. This changes the ground temperature and can accelerate the thawing of the permafrost. As a result, large amounts of carbon that have been frozen for thousands of years could be released, contributing to global warming. 

 

[GaWx]

13 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The expansion of the boreal forests into the tundra raises another set of issues.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/boreal-trees-are-spreading-into-the-arctic-tundra-405025

 

In an increasingly warmer world, the Arctic tundra is becoming more forestlike. This process, known as borealization, is particularly widespread in Eurasia and in Arctic mountain regions, where the distance to the boreal (northern) forest is shorter. Many species of grasses and shrubs that can live in both the tundra and the forest are gaining ground in the tundra. This is shown by a new large-scale study of 1,100 sampling sites across the entire Arctic biome.

Consequences

“If this trend continues, it could have a number of consequences. For example, it could accelerate the melting of the permafrost or change the seasonal migration of reindeer. It could also affect the traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, who rely on hunting, reindeer herding, and gathering plants as a part of their subsistence and cultural practice,” says Robert Björk, a researcher on Arctic ecosystems at the University of Gothenburg.

When shrubs and other tree-like species expand, they trap more snow in winter and cover the ground in summer. This changes the ground temperature and can accelerate the thawing of the permafrost. As a result, large amounts of carbon that have been frozen for thousands of years could be released, contributing to global warming. 

 

 Thanks for posting about this perspective about borealization, which presents it as a net negative. Modeling the potential myriad of effects of continued GW for the globe as a whole remains a highly complex and thus difficult endeavor. Thus having good discussions on these topics is beneficial.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 Thanks for posting about this perspective about borealization, which presents it as a net negative. Modeling the potential myriad of effects of continued GW for the globe as a whole remains a highly complex and thus difficult endeavor. Thus having good discussions on these topics is beneficial.

That’s why this forum is such a great resource. It allows people from all over to share ideas. Having all this information in one central location is very convenient.