Word in the woods is that the cause is many decades of fire suppression ... I'm sure all of us are familiar with Ranger Gord and his PSA's about fire safety from his fire lookout tower ... those lookout towers actually existed along the West Coast ... taxpayer dollars paid to have people living all summer in tall towers on hilltops looking for smoke, as soon as a little was seen and reported, ten's of firefighters would descend on the smoke and put out the fire immediately ... half a century later, the fuels have built up and fires are bigger and hotter ... Smokey the Bear was wrong, California is supposed to burn on a regular basis ...
The tweet in the OP is an excellent example of a nice trick of the statistical arts ... we can cleverly reduce our sample pool and drive up our positive rates through the roof ... if a couple has twins, what are the odds that both children will attend the same school at the same time? ... the tweet only looks at weather from May-Oct, the dry season where rainfall is rare or nonexistent ... there's no such thing as "cool and wet" or "hot and wet" summers, it's bone dry almost every summer ... just running fast and loose with a massive dose of statistical lies ...
The graphs more closely follow population growth in California ... and the consequent more folks visiting these bone dry forests and playing with matches ...
Oregon prohibits building homes in the forests for the most part, in some cases any building for any reason is strictly prohibited ... thus nowhere close to the number of running miles of 2,400 volt electric cables in the woods ... we still have forest fires, but here homes and lives are not endangered ... surprisingly, these land use restrictions were Republican ideas, on behalf of the timber industry, in no small part because of the insanity of California land development policies ...
So the answer is NO, a 2ºC temperature increase 100 years from now doesn't cause forest fires today ...
His attitude, like many Americans is, "Let the fuckers buyn!!"
