Same with Australia. There’s so many pyrophytes that the Eucalyptus tree adapted to produce an oil that burns especially hot in order to wipe out competitors and prevent them from sprouting after the fire.

Canada, on the other hand, is a powder keg waiting to blow. The ecosystem is too wet to have any fire adaptations and as the peatlands dry, they expose meters thick layers of undecomposed plant matter that are dense enough to be used as a cheap and dirty fuel in some parts of world. It’s one of the largest carbon stores on the planet and we’ll soon have months long fires a the peat burns.

Please read the links. I'm not some anti climate nut. This isn't some controversial take, if you're at all familiar with local politics/policies.

Fires in CA are normal, but not all fires are equal, and the fires that have been in CA recently are worse than they would have been even with the excess ground litter.

The fire season is longer, the droughts are worse, the fires are more intense, fires are happening outside of their historic range, and trees are not surviving the fire assuming they weren't dead already due to drought.

Timely article, "Anthropogenic climate change impacts exacerbate summer forest fires in California" (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2213815120)

> even with the excess ground litter

With the nearly 30 years of mismanagement, I'm having trouble understanding how that conclusion can be so easily made. From your link:

> While an increase in temperatures and dryness has been identified to be one of the major drivers of increased summer forest burned area (BA), the extent to which such changes are due to natural variability or anthropogenic climate change remains unresolved

You are cherry picking quotes. This is from the abstract:

"Our results indicate that nearly all the observed increase in BA is due to anthropogenic climate change as historical model simulations accounting for anthropogenic forcing yield 172% (range 84 to 310%) more area burned than simulations with natural forcing only. We detect the signal of combined historical forcing on the observed BA emerging in 2001 with no detectable influence of the natural forcing alone. In addition, even when considering fuel limitations from fire-fuel feedbacks, a 3 to 52% increase in BA relative to the last decades is expected in the next decades (2031 to 2050), highlighting the need for proactive adaptations." - "BA" is "burned area"

This is from the conclusion:

"These findings strongly indicate that the observed increase in BA was primarily due to increased fuel aridity and not due to simultaneous variations in nonclimate factors such as human effects on ignitions, fire suppression, or by altering land cover (similarly to the conclusions by refs. 1 and 42). Our results suggest that changes in human environmental factors, including changes in biomass and fire management practices during the period of record, did not significantly affect the stability of the climate-fire relationship at the scales analyzed here."

I'm not saying fire suppression policies had no impact. I'm saying that they are not the only cause of the fires. Furthermore, I am saying they aren't even the primary cause, and it's not close.