So, with a lower than predicted warming rate, we are getting more results, ice melting, extreme precipitation events, fires, droughts than predicted. That is so comforting. LOL 1956 to 1999, one year with over 7 million acres burned in the US. 2000 to present, ten years with over 7 million acres burned. And this year looks like another with more than 7 million acres burned.
The current warming rate are nearly identical to previous warming rates back to the mid 1880's, which means it is within historical trends of the last 150 years,
long before CO2 started going up, which doesn't change the per decade warming rate at all.
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:"
================
I see that warmist loons completely ignored this thread, gee I wonder why.....
A Geological Perspective of Wildfires
================
In this thread below, you made this fine comment that
YOU otherwise ignore its relevance in other wildfire threads:
"The Forest Service does not have the money for proper thinning and management of the forests. When they overrun their fire budget, which is every year, then they take money from the other parts of their budget to fight the fires. Separate the fire budget, make it stand alone and supplement it as needed, then the FS can start the needed management of the forests."
Are Environmentalists To Blame For All These Fires?
================
Then we have this thread showing based on a published research report that 84% of all wildfires are started by humans, in the thread your comment tried to ignore that inconvenient revelation to attack fossil fuel companies, who didn't start any of the fires.
Your attack on fossil fuel companies is irrational and pointless, since they don't commit arson or be careless about campfires. THEY ARE NOT STARTING FIRES, THEY ARE NOT CREATING CONDITIONS FOR BIG FIRES EITHER!
Stupid People Start 90% of California Wildfires 
