4 ms·
The majority were either natural starts (lightning) or accidental (unsupervised campfires and I think one was due to a tossed lit cigarette) however after the f
by jacoblambda 7y ago
The majority were either natural starts (lightning) or accidental (unsupervised campfires and I think one was due to a tossed lit cigarette) however after the fires had been burning for a while there were a few cases of arson because some people just like to see the world burn.
Regardless of which fires were started by what cause however, the fires burn extremely hot and spread fast as a result of conditions caused by climate change. This turns something as simple as a tossed cigarette into a meaningful fire hazard and turns a normal fire into one that spreads aggressively enough to render it nearly impossible to stop with a large amount of manpower. That makes them actually impossible when they are burning all over the country and the mostly unpaid volunteer fire fighting force is spread thin dealing with them.
That's the thing I've taken away from all of this, climate change doesn't necessarily increase the number of incidents to unreasonable levels (the rate goes up but not to apocalyptic levels), instead it takes otherwise minor or normal incidents and sets the conditions to allow them to escalate in increasing severity.
- yters 7y agoHow do we know we can attribute the fires to climate change? It seems like every natural disaster gets attributed to climate change, since 'climate change is happening', and, in turn, all these natural disasters are given as evidence that 'climate change is happening'. Seems very circular logic.
- throwaheyy 7y agoHotter weather dries out vegetation making fires worse. That overall hotter weather is the result of climate change. It's not circular, nor is it that hard to understand.