Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
environment

'Zombie' blazes and drought: Canada headed for another brutal fire season

20 Comments
By Marion THIBAUT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2024 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


20 Comments
Login to comment

Mother Nature doing what she does best.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Mother Nature doing what she does best.

Actually this is not a natural phenomenon, it is affected heavily by human activity derived climate change as described in many sources,

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-more-than-doubled-the-likelihood-of-extreme-fire-weather-conditions-in-eastern-canada/

Even in this article several times it is mentioned the conditions that increase the risk of fire are not what normally is observed but instead an exceptional thing.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

maybe Canada can increase its firefighters through immigration. Have a special express entry for firefighters.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

maybe Canada can increase its firefighters through immigration. Have a special express entry for firefighters.

Fortunately, other countries send firefighters to help in the bad season. Notably the Aussies, who are in their off season at the time.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The invincible forces of nature acting naturally as has been the case through history.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

The invincible forces of nature acting naturally as has been the case through history.

The same as in the previous comment, this is not nature, this is heavily affected by human activity, by definition artificial. The excuse of things being natural no longer apply when it is being proved scientifically humans cause the increase.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

The same thing is occurring in Siberia but the size of the problem there is an order of magnitude greater than it is for Canada.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

And mark my words despite the unusual and extreme situation there will be Canadians posting on the J-T articles about fires in Canada this coming summer claiming the government or "Justin" isn't doing enough to fight the fires.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Fortunately, other countries send firefighters to help in the bad season. Notably the Aussies, who are in their off season at the time.

I know. the Canadians reciprocate with their boys helping out with OZ fires. One of the MANY reasons I support CANZUK.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Nature will be nature. Can't control it.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Nature will be nature. Can't control it.

Humans inadvertently have controlled nature for the worse, now it remains to be seen if we can limit the effect by controlling it back towards what was normal before the worst possible consequences are observed..

2 ( +7 / -5 )

remember those crazy "climate change" forest fires in Nova Scotia last summer? Nope.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/man-charged-canada-largest-wildfire-ever-nova-scotia#:~:text=A%20Nova%20Scotia%20man%20has,after%20deliberately%20lighting%20forest%20fires.

...or those horrible "climate change" forest fires in Quebec...(Nope)

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-man-pleads-guilty-to-setting-14-forest-fires-burning-hundreds-of-hectares

Alberta......(nah)

https://globalnews.ca/news/9673400/arson-alberta-wildfires-intentionally-set-church/

Looks like Mr. Climate Change" will spend time behind bars with 3 hots and a cot.

Meanwhile;

"The annual number of fires grew from 1959 to 1990, peaking in 1989 at just over 12,000 that year, and has been trending down since. From 2017 to 2021 (the most recent interval available), there were about 5,500 fires per year, half the average from 1987 to 1991."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/forest-fires-truth-going-up-in-flames#:~:text=The%20annual%20number%20of%20fires,average%20from%201987%20to%201991.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

remember those crazy "climate change" forest fires in Nova Scotia last summer? Nope.

Factors related to climate change can affect the degree of damage of fires produced by any cause, and even facilitate artificially produced fires being present or becoming out of control. The most important factor is that climate change is nowhere near the projected intensity, the effects are just beginning to be observed and are predicted to become much more important from now on. Just because a room was hotter at noon that does not mean the smoke beginning to fill it from a building fire is no reason to worry.

Also, the Fraser Institute is a well know source of misinformation about climate change, with many instances where it reports incomplete information to mislead people into having a wrong idea about the effects of climate change, it is not exactly a source that people use to actually understand the problem.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/247154/scientists-uncover-role-climate-change-devastating/

for example examine data from 2023, already available, that clearly indicates the importance it had making fires so intense.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Also, the Fraser Institute is a well know source of misinformation about climate change, 

And there it is! You knew it was coming. The Baseless (TM) claim.

The Fraser Institute is universally respected and uses raw data from the Wildland Information System.

It doesn't use loaded terminology like "expects" and "observers believe that this year will be yada yada yada..."

Wildfires burning at half the rate as they were 30 years ago is based on raw data. It is undeniable.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Also, the Fraser Institute is a well know source of misinformation

and then you provide an URL to Imperial College London, which has a long history of being way off in their modeling...

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

There are many sources that clearly describe your reference as misleading and not trust worthy in the topic of climate change, presenting partial information to present a false point as if it was valid. The institute does use experts and models in their articles, just without the necessary context to see their actual conclusions. Ignoring this perfectly proved criticism do not make it baseless

Wildfires on the year 2023 are not "half" than 30 years ago, that is something the reference provided clearly prove, so why insist on repeating that falsehood?

and then you provide an URL to Imperial College London, which has a long history of being way off in their modeling

The data on the fires on the year 2023 do not depend on any modeling it is something that already happened.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There are many sources that clearly describe your reference as misleading and not trust worthy in the topic of climate change, presenting partial information to present a false point as if it was valid.

Name the sources, please

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

also, "VirusRex", the subject is forest fires, not climate change.

Please specify the sources that accuse the Fraser Institute and the Wildland Information System as bald faced liars.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

also, "VirusRex", the subject is forest fires, not climate change.

Living in a place that has faced increased forest fires in direct correlation with the advancement of climate change, I assure you that you cannot separate forest fires from climate change.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Name the sources, please

These articles

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/climate-policy-implications-hiatus-global-warming

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/federal-climate-report-uses-natural-weather-events-to-spark-scary-headlines

Openly lied by making unsupported claims that are actually the opposite of what the evidence shows, for example

warming has actually slowed down to a pace well below most model projections.

...there has been no statistically significant temperature change for the past 15 to 20 years.

The actual evidence completely contradicts these claims

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?t

The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia

Books published by the institute like Global Warming: The Science and the Politics, have been demonstrated to make false and misleading claims as well,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/

This terribly low standard that ends up with invalid conclusions is of course easily explaned by the huge conflict of interest coming from the funding it receive being conditional to opposing the scientific consensus on climate.

also, "VirusRex", the subject is forest fires, not climate change.

The subject of my comment (to which you are replying) is how climate change is producing wild fires of increased potency and danger. The moment you choose to respond to that subject you are discussing it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites