Comment by wosk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wosk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Le Monde, very reputed French newspaper (NYtimes equivalent for France perhaps) says that it’s not the first time this cloud is seen in France [1]: (translation mine)

> “What is happening right now is extremely, extremely unusual. Seeing a cloud this massive and reaching such an altitude above a wildfire is exceptionally rare,” the researcher explains.

“During the Pedrógão fire [which claimed around 60 lives in Portugal in 2017], there were two episodes of fire-induced thunderstorms. Here, we are already at eight or ten, and the forecast is not encouraging at all.”

Although unprecedented in both intensity and frequency, the phenomenon has been observed in France before, according to the expert: during the Fontainebleau wildfire (Seine-et-Marne) in July, the Ribaute fire (Aude) in 2025, and the Générac fire (Gard) in 2019.

It seems that this cloud and the attached storms have been seen before, even recently, in France, but this one is one of a kind for intensity, by far.

[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2026/07/27/le-pyrocum...

What is indicative of escalating climate catastrophe is indeed the intensity and frequency of those firestorms, not any lack of precedent for a cloud shape.

But the really salient observation is how people individually and their social system as a whole react (or not).

Debating the shapes of clouds points to a fundamental dysfunctional disconnect on multiple levels.

> Debating the shapes of clouds points to a fundamental dysfunctional disconnect on multiple levels.

No, it points to the HN community exhibiting the exact kind of neurodiversity that would be expected here. Specifically: an ability to compartmentalize, and to take interest in trying to be accurate about something less consequential, purely for accuracy's sake.

> What is indicative of escalating climate catastrophe is indeed the intensity and frequency of those firestorms

I don't think we have the data that proves this theory (which of course doesn't mean that the theory is wrong), because the vast majority of these fires are man-made, not natural disasters.

This year's Fontainebleau wildfires were caused by 1) a deranged person ligthning bushes and drenching them with fuel 2) a simple minded person throwing a cigaret but in bushes during a heat wave...

The huge wildfire in the south some years ago was caused by a similarly simple minded dude that caried his alight barbecue from one place to another on the back of his pickup truck (creating a dozen wildfires in the process along the road).

People have not suddenly become deranged or simple minded.

Two of the large recent fires in the Landes region, including the most recent, have started from poorly maintained, spontaneously igniting cars. Those also have not suddenly started appearing out of nowhere.

The common thread is very dry forests, it just takes a spark for disaster.

You're conceptually wrong about "the theory" and factually about the majority of fires.

The fundamental connection increase of CO2 => increase in mean temperature => increase in frequency of high-energy atmospheric events is entirely obvious and well established.

CO2 traps heat and heat is energy. Firestorms are an immediate consequence of that and accordingly rise in frequency as well.

The idea, such fires would be "preventable, since due to individual human action" is patently absurd even in principle. You cannot easily ignite a forest that isn't dried out. An easily ignitable forest on the other hand just waits for the first spark, no matter the source. The hotter climate provides more sparks in the form of lightning. At some point, ignition is virtually guaranteed. And that point is reached already.

> You're conceptually wrong about "the theory" and factually about the majority of fires.

Well then prove me wrong...

The BDIFF publishes data of close to 30 years of wildfires reports.

If you plot the number of wildfire occurrences per year, you will see a decreasing curve up to 2010, then a constant rise onward, forming a U shape. I don't think you will find any correlation with global warming data there.

If you plot a pie chart of investigated wildfire causes, you will see the top cause being "criminal" at 35% of investigated occurrences, followed by "Involontary individual" (the simple minded guy with his cigaret but) at 25%, and "Involontary work" at 15%.

Now let me repeat again, I'm not saying that CC does not play a role in this story (not sure why I bother since it does not seem like people really try to understand the comments anymore), what I'm saying is that data does not really exhibit any obvious correlation between the two, and would suggest that even if CC is a factor, then other factors would seem to have a much greater impact.

Said impacting factors are not hard to find btw, and top is: investments in prevention and detection (which positively correlates with French BDIFF data FYI), and addition of stoppers and lay-lines in man made forests (yes, because the majority of French forests are not natural but man shaped as huge lumps of uninterrupted tree)

I think you're missing a step --> Drier forests and more downed trees.

All the lightning in the world isn't going to burn down a rainforest.

Spot on. But logic is lost on people who are ideologically motivated.

Ah, would the world not be full of so many simple-minded people, we'd all be free!

[edited out things that were badly worded]

Wildfires being incited by arsonists don't contradict climate effects, neither would an increase in arson.

But it's important to point out arson instead of ignoring it, even more so when the situation is dangerous. Agreed.

It's just also important to do research on the environment that sustains our lives, no matter how many know-it-alls tell you that the sweet fountain of fossil fuels will enlighten us forever, no matter how wasteful and corrupt we are in distributing its yield.

What is with this snark? Why do we assume that everyone who says anything even slightly challenging to the narrative directly blaming climate change, is aligned with pro-fossil fuel interests?

Instead, why not, for example, show the model of what would have happened to the fire if the current weather in the region had been a couple of degrees cooler? (I mean, it's not as if we can even do a ceteris paribus comparison to the stats on wildfires from pre-industrial times; there is way too much ceteris to paribize.)

I am not capable to assess the direct effect of CC on the probability of this disaster.

I question what is the value or helpfulness of continuing to doubt scientifically proven facts. The summer heatwaves and other natural disasters have increased enough in my lifetime to witness it, but even if that wasn't the case,

I consider dismissing widely accepted scientific results using words like "simple-minded" as pretty much the definition of snark.

As a reflection on my original comment (I depend on fossil fuels myself, like we all do):

Of course, shortening the reasoning enough, attributing any weather event to climate change, or even the climate alone, is impossible. I don't like beligerent simplifications myself. But that's why the quoted sentence in the original comment is about frequency, not just this particular wildfire season. At least that's what I thought.

The mechanisms of the short-term disruption of the Earth's climate due to greenhouse gas emissions and habitat destruction are more and more well-understood, as far as I know, though.

All reports that I read have phrasing that states the problems of climate attribution carefully, often including a paragraph about the importance of wildfires for the natural cycle.

In my opinion, claiming that not dedicating the problems of climate attribution at least 3 paragraphs in every report on a natural disaster that mentions climate change, is short-sighted (to use a different word).

In statistics, you can always play devil's advocate.

If Europe would be covered in ice in 50 years, there would probably still be someone claiming "see, there's no such thing as global warming!"

I explicitly mentioned arson as relevant to balance my point, but my patience ran out at some point. It is important.

And climate change is at least as important.

I don't read attempts at attributing natural disasters to climate change as "direct" or "simple-minded". I think the science has surpassed this point about 50 yrs ago.

Have a nice day. I tried to edit out snark and hate it every time I get into such a discussion at all. But I also am at least irritated by climate-denialism (or feel a tendency towards it).

It's a terrible word, there should be a better one, but I don't think "climate science skeptics" cuts it...

I get into such discussions too often because I see us depending on fossil fuels, for the foreseeable future. As well as on water, housing, food, etc.

Related: Dust Bowl, a good, recent enough example of man-made large changes causing (albeit local) climate change. If I'm not mistaken. Fascinating topic.

> I question what is the value or helpfulness of continuing to doubt scientifically proven facts.

And I question why you believe that anyone here did doubt them.

> I consider dismissing widely accepted scientific results using words like "simple-minded" as pretty much the definition of snark.... In what world is calling climate attribution "simple-minded" not snark?

That is not what happened. The term "simple-minded" was not used to describe "scientific results" of any kind, nor the underlying scientific theory, nor any scientist involved. It was used to describe someone who carelessly started the fire.

Oof. that's on me then, because I did read the parts about people making fires and smoking in the forests, but still misread this.

I'll leave the rest of what I wrote as it is.

Might I add that the possibility of the country going up in flames is magnified by the climate change that allows everything to be so dry and volatile, regardless of the cause of the fires that occurred.

The fires being large enough to create their own thunderstorms is a proxy for intensity, hence the significance.

You're right about that, but that's a corner too much to turn for most people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com