Global Warming Alarmist Prediction Goes Up In Flames

In the history of global warming hysteria, we should never forget the impact that the wildfire season of 1988-1989 had on the next movement of environmental activism. Add the death of the Superconducting Super Collider and how the supercomputing budgets had to be redeployed to simulate other chaotic systems, such as weather and climate, and it's no wonder global warming described by GCM's became the new narrative in the 1990's. So, increased forest fires has always been one of the scare cards played in the hysteria game, along with heatwaves, droughts, and stronger hurricanes. However, if we actually look at the scenarios predicted by GCM's when CO2 is increased, hurricanes are supposed to become weaker, precipitation cycles will become longer because of the increased biomass from the increased CO2, and weather will become milder (although slightly warmer) because a warming world mitigates the weather extremes.

That's the theory, anyway. So, what about those forest fires? According to all the what-if scenarios, forest fires are supposed to be a climate forcing because of the CO2 released during the burning; the burn areas have lower albedos, absorbing more heat from the Sun; and the warming is supposed to increase drought conditions, meaning more fires. So, have there been more fires and more burn areas during those 20 years when all that exponential warming was supposed to have happened. The answer is no. Looking at the satellite data, we can safely remove wildfires as a feedback forcing for the supposed exponential warming during the last 20 years of the 20th century. We can also remove wildfires as a symptom of global warming. What I want to see from now on, in news coverage of out-of-control fires, is a return to environmentalists screaming about land-management policies, and stop hyping the climate change angle. Will it happen? I have very low expectations on that end.