Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests.
70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
Is the issue truly that practices still havent changed?
But even so, the region seems perfect for spontaneous combustion.
Forests don't spontaneous combust. I don't believe there was any forest fire proven to have started via spontaneous combustion.
Forests don't spontaneously combust. Sawdust does, manure does, compost piles do but there's isn't near enough fuel in a forest without human intervention to cause spontaneous combustion.
That and I find it odd you don't count the sun as a external heat source.
But beyond that there are enough sources indicating it can happen...
- https://sciencestruck.com/what-causes-forest-fires
- https://www.natural-hazards.ch/home/dealing-with-natural-haz...
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion
- https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-wildfires
It seems I could go on and on of people describing how it can happen and some how it has happens.
It ain't guaranteed, but take 1 billion of those drops, a mix of good conditions (no rain, just droplets from morning dew in otherwise dry place) and things will eventually happen naturally.
I've seen it caught on camera by BBC team in some african documentary, a single droplet around bird's nest causing significant fire.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lightning-strik...
The existence of adaptations to fire in the Californian ecology is good evidence for it being a significant factor (and if these were in response to human activity, then why not elsewhere?)