Talk:Wildfire

Please add some info about and from this report to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

UN researchers publish a comprehensive study about climate change impacted wildfires with projections (e.g. a 31–57% increase of extreme wildfires by 2100) and information about impacts and countermeasures.^[1][2]

I think that only including the above info in section #"Climate change effects" may be insufficient and that it would be good to add information about e.g./especially countermeasures, including (but not only) from this report.

Moreover, I think Effects of climate change#Wildfires (discuss) should also be expanded with brief info from this report.

Prototyperspective (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In this article no mention was made about the damage to oxygen production by wildfires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.38.69 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is currently too long. It has 69 kB (10687 words) "readable prose size". I think it would be good to bring it down to around 50 kB. Looking at the section sizes (see at the top of the talk page), my initial feeling would be that the sections on "ecology" and on "human risk and exposure" should probably be condensed a bit. EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've done some culling and condensing today. I got as far as the section "impacts on humans". Current length is now 55 kB. I found there was a lot of content that was overly detailed, too specific for the U.S., deviating from the main topic into the content area of sub-articles (I have moved some of that and brought it back through the use of the excerpt tool), student-added content which was sometimes difficult to understand, relying too much on a primary source, too detailed or not encyclopedic. (it seems like a lot of students have worked on this article). I will stop for now, to let those who are watching this page catch up, but the bottom part still needs to be scrutinised. I find the tool "who wrote that?" very useful for this exercise. EMsmile (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This article uses the short ref style but without hyperlinks from the reference list to the sources list. This needs to be improved to make it more user friendly. I would opt to convert the article over to long ref style. I won't have time to tackle this straight away but eventually it needs doing, I think. EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the references are problematic 207.181.209.31 (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There are no figures at all about the different raisons of wildfires. It seems to me that the more frequent are human ones. 37.174.41.65 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems intuitive, but it has almost zero explanatory utility.

Australians are not uniquely prone to arson — Australia is uniquely prone to the spread of bushfires, regardless of their immediate cause. Foxmilder (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

the topics of the article aren't too much, but I would still suggest to combine the topics: "Impacts on ecosystems", "impacts on humans", and "health effects" into a single topic named "Impacts" and the the three current topics could be it's sub-topics... Suryanshu Gupta (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your rationale makes sense. Feel free to do this yourself! Wracking ^talk! 17:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've now moved "health effects" into "impacts on humans" so that we have now two sections about impacts. I wouldn't merge them into one single section on impacts as it would get massive and the sub-structure would get too deep. Having two sections on impacts is already, I would say: one for the natural environment and one for humans. By the way the section on health impacts is rather large and might warrant splitting off into a sub-article or moving some of it to Smoke#Health effects of wood smoke. EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this text block about surface air quality because it was rather wordy and didn't really fit in my opinion. Perhaps it fits better in a sub-article?

Surface air quality:

Whether transported smoke plumes are relevant for surface air quality depends on where they exist in the atmosphere, which in turn depends on the initial injection height of the convective smoke plume into the atmosphere. Smoke that is injected above the planetary boundary layer (PBL) may be detectable from spaceborne satellites and play a role in altering the Earth's energy budget, but would not mix down to the surface where it would impact air quality and human health. Alternatively, smoke confined to a shallow PBL (through nighttime stable stratification of the atmosphere or terrain trapping) may become particularly concentrated and problematic for surface air quality. Wildfire intensity and smoke emissions are not constant throughout the fire lifetime and tend to follow a diurnal cycle that peaks in late afternoon and early evening, and which may be reasonably approximated using a monomodal or bimodal normal distribution.^[1] EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree — that’s a long way removed from the basic concept of the wildfire; it belongs in an article about atmospheric phenomena. Foxmilder (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed content that had recently been added but which I felt was overly detailed (and all sourced to just the one BBC article?). I did leave a sentence about the use of AI in the text as I felt this might be a reasonable summary statement. Removed text was:

++++++++++

There have also been numerous companies and start-ups releasing new drone technology, many of which use AI. Data Blanket, a Seattle-based startup backed by Bill Gates, has developed drones capable of performing self-guided flights in order to conduct comprehensive assessments of wildfires and the surrounding site, providing real-time and critical information such as local vegetation and fuels. The drones are equipped with RGB and infrared cameras, AI-based computational software, 5G/Wi-Fi, and advanced navigational features. Data Blanket has also stated that its system will eventually be capable of producing micro-weather data, further supporting firefighter efforts by delivering crucial information. Additionally, scientists from Imperial College London and Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, have designed the experimental 'FireDrone', which can handle temperatures of up to 200C for 10 minutes. Another company, the German-based Orora Tech, as of 2023 has two satellites in orbit packaged with infrared sensors that are capable of quickly detecting temperature and soil anomalies, with the ability to predict the likely growth and spread rate of a fire in comparison to others. The company has stated that it will be capable of scanning the earth 48 times per day by 2026.^[1] EMsmile (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the removal. We've already stated as much that remote sensing is used in wildfire detection. This is just another development in the field that deserves mention but I wouldn't say this much detail. Reconrabbit 13:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The article conflates "wildfire," "forest fire," and "bushfire" (is that a typo for "brushfire"?), characterizing all three as "an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable fire in an area of combustible vegetation."

Dictionaries differ on whether wildfires occur only in areas of combustible vegetation.

• The American Heritage Dictionary entry makes no mention of where or what is burned.

• The Miriam Webster definition adds "especially in a wilderness or rural area."

• The link in the article's first citation is broken, but Cambridge entry says "on an area of grass or bushes in the countryside."

• The Canadian Wildland Fire Management glossary from the second link defines wildfire by contrasting it with a "prescribed fire."

It appears the "wild" in "wildfire" primarily refers to the unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable nature of a fire rather than its location or primary fuel source. Presenting wildfire as nearly synonymous with the other terms blurs this distinction.

The Palisades fire that's currently burning in Los Angeles County, California, is called a wildfire because it's unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable. It began in a landscaped backyard and has primarily burned in a developed residential area. It has mostly consumed houses, buildings, and landscaped areas. Although I'm sure there were pockets of untamed brush that helped the fire to spread, it's neither a forest fire nor a brushfire.

In contrast, the contemporary Eaton fire has (thus far) burned a portion of the Angeles National Forest as well as (somewhat lower density) residential areas along the perimeter of the forest. It's wild nature classifies it as a wildfire, but it's probably also a forest fire and/or a brushfire.

Aidtopia (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)