That first link you gave shows a lot of variation, but doesn't give any info to compare to 1950s because it only goes to 1987, as you said. So we can't use that to make any conclusions about now versus 1950s.
I think we also have to consider the intensity of fires. Supposedly, fires are hotter now because there's a lot more accumulated fuel since there are no longer so many smaller fires. In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions.
:In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions
Its in the second link and i summarised it. Acres burned has actually reduced. If you read that second link it gives 1950s data. Acres burned reduced in 1950s and then increased, but is still lower than pre goldrush. Looks like the author cherrypicked the 1950s.
I was actually going by the picture and the very first sentence: "A wildfire tore through Fort McMurray, Alberta, on Saturday, May 7, 2016...Earth’s weather, now, not in the future—and it’s full of fire".
I read the article to see what it said about wildfires and climate change, as there has been a lot of invalid hyperbole about that very subject recently (including a recent Guardian opinion piece which incorrectly stated that Canada's wildfires have increased, when the Canadian Wildfire Database actually shows the opposite).
Not unexpectedly, this article also misrepresents climate change as increasing wildfires.
It's just very irritating all these terrible arguments that are doing so much to justify climate denialism even though they are attempting to do the opposite.
Here is the Guardian article I'm referring to which first got my ire up about this subject:
I think HN does that deliberately to slow down arguments.
>The link you have provided seems to show a decrease in total fires but some increase in actual area burned.
There seem to be two aspects to area burned: many years it is very low, and then every few years there is a very large burn. Those very large burns were bigger in the 80s than in the past 10 years. You could look at the average, but that probably isn't going to show anything useful (which is probably why they haven't put it on the graph).
Both the Mercury News article and this Canadian Natural Resources document say that the main reason for the changes is due to human behaviour rather than climate: factors such as chopping down burned trees instead of leaving them, putting out every fire that is found, more people going into the wilderness, etc.
If someone is arguing that climate change is causing drier areas which results in more wildfires or larger wildfires, it's a poor argument if the data doesn't actually show that there are more wildfires or larger "big burns" now than in the 80s (or pre-gold rush).
I think we also have to consider the intensity of fires. Supposedly, fires are hotter now because there's a lot more accumulated fuel since there are no longer so many smaller fires. In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions.