[missedthecue]

A massive increase in events? Or a massive increase in the reporting of events?

Wildfires for instance have dominated headlines for the past few years, but over the last 50-100 years, wildfire numbers are down massively in the US and Australia.

[smackeyacky]

I am going to assume you are uninformed rather than deliberately speading disinformation, but there isn't a single grain of truth in your comment. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51742646

In Australia we now regularly deal with considerably increased risk and incidence of bushfires compared to even 50 years ago, all of it due to human activities relating to climate change.

[missedthecue]

The total area burned annually in Australia is down massively over the past century and the trend is decreasing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ev4P6DIWQAUXTKh?format=jpg&name=...

A fantastic example of my point is in the animal deaths that occured on account of the fires in Australia. It received a stunning amount of media coverage. Yet the total number of animals killed by the fires was much lower than in previous years. To the casual uninformed reader (99% of them) this would seem like some extraordinary and unprecedented event.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwMh7dSXYAIeM7p?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwMSJh8WUAAdLHF?format=jpg&name=...

[techdragon]

The total burn area is affected by how effective we have gotten at fighting and managing the fire risks. The number of actual fires that start is the relevant metric here.

[smackeyacky]

Lomborg is not a credible source for anything. Those pictures are basically lies packaged up to look legit.

[mint2]

>“Wild fire numbers are down massively in the US”?!?!?!

Nine of the top ten largest California fires in the last 100 years, are within the past ten years. What sort of wild fire numbers do you mean?

[missedthecue]

Total area burned annually in the US. Down by a huge amount over the past century.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7nujQWXsAISEKs?format=jpg&name=...

[mint2]

The graph you linked to is at best extremely flawed. It’s either by a climate denier intentionally trying to trick readers like you or at best it’s by someone who has no idea about fires and fire policy.

While sometimes it can be hard to spot lying by statistics, this instance there was a huge red flag present suggesting that the chart was questionable. The strange long and poorly annoyed extrapolation trend line along with the odd very colloquial phrasing of the label is a big warning sign. If it didn’t raise some doubts for you, pay attention to details like that in the future.

So what is the elephant in the room they are hiding in the hopes of lying with stats to deceive people like you about fires and climate?

Well wonder why there was a drastic reduction in fire size in the early decades? It’s called the 10 am rule and should be known by anyone researching fire behavior over the time span they plot, so they intentionally are ignoring it. Had they marked on the policy changes on the graph then the cause of the reduction would be obvious. And when fire policy is clearly a major impact on fire size, trying to extrapolate another driver of fire behavior change while intentionally ignoring the dominant factor is not a good look.

The actual part where the decayed are more comparable are 1980 onward.

And this acres burned graph is also a misdirection in itself. The main issue with recent fires is the intensity and speed that they explode in size along with the increasingly build out wild land urban interface. And the fire intensity is a product of many factors, hotter weather and droughts leave the forest primed to burn, but also the past fire suppression led to a lot of fuel build up.

The lying with stats graph: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7nujQWXsAISEKs?format=jpg&name=...

[Nejoti]

You should not take the numbers which fit your view but look at all numbers.

The type of crazy events are getting more, the extremes also.

There are plenty of statistics telling us that co2 is going up, glacier ice down, temperatures up etc.

What's happening right now in Italy, Greece and turkey is extreme. The flood in Germany was extreme.

'i have never seen something like this in my whole life' was what you heard from plenty of people.

Canada's wildfire this year is already at 3 million, the drought in California is still ongoing and in new Zealand they have also issues with power generation through water.

You really should follow the science of it more closely if you still argue with numbers which fit your view.

Not sure though what your goal is. Are you worried that we spend too much resources on renewable and sustainable solutions globally?