From our resolution source, we see that the cumulative number of acres burnt from January to June is 1,789,582 (h/t @NoOne). This is the exact same number I had been using so far from the archived NIFC page of June 30, but obviously this source is more reliable.
From the NIFC information page, the situation as of today, July 16, is at 2,647,028 burnt acres (year-to-date)
The difference between the 2 numbers, i.e. the acres burnt in July 1-16, is at 857,446. This number is at ~66.8% of the required threshold in 16 days, with 15 more days to go. ~76,400 acres were added today.
Hehe... always open to friendly nitpicking contests 😉Here we go...
there is one day delay
Actually, there is not - or, to be precise, there is, but due to the fine print of the reporting system, it is actually immaterial to our resolution. For our practical purposes, there is not, and we should not adjust for it.
I have written about it 2-3 times below (the argument looks temptingly reasonable, and many have fallen for it), but let me summarize here the evidence again.
For 2025:
Cumulative acres burned from January to June from our resolution source: 1,789,582
So, evidently, at least for the 3 months of the recent past I have checked (July 2023, July 2024, June 2025), the cumulative number picked up by NOAA/NCEI (our resolution source) is the number reported by NIFC in their last daily report for the respective month, despite the fact that this number, due to the time of its publication (morning hours), does not actually include the last ~17 hours of the month under consideration (while it obviously includes the last ~17 hours of the previous month).
My 2 cents: it makes much sense for the NOAA/NCEI to utilize the reporting system of NIFC as is, and they have probably decided that trying to rectify such minor things in order to be "exact" would be... too much of nitpicking (😂) for no good reason...
So, the cumulative number reported by NIFC in their daily report of July 31, 2025 (morning...) will be the number used for resolution here. No reporting delays to take care and adjust for. The acres burned in the last ~17 hours of July are simply immaterial to us (NIFC will include them in their August 1 daily report, and NOAA/NCEI will subsequently count them in August).
Consequently, as we currently have data for July 1-16, as far as our question here is concerned, we have data for 16 days, with 15 days (i.e. 15 NIFC daily reports...) to go, and not vice-versa... The 16th NIFC daily report from today (assuming 7 reports/week) will be dated August 1, and it will be immaterial to us.
(Note: There is a discrepancy of ~10,000 acres for July 2022, but I trust we can stick to the recent evidence - some details of the reporting process might have changed since 2022).
Indeed we are, and although the situation currently is such that it makes such a distinction rather academic nitpicking and practically irrelevant, it could make the difference in a different version of the question (e.g. different threshold) and/or different daily burning rate; as I have noticed elsewhere:
And if one thinks that one single (July...) day cannot be a big deal, one may be interested to learn that the single day difference between July 30 and July 31, 2024 was no less than ~201,000 acres...!
Why do you think you're right?
The difference between the 2 numbers, i.e. the acres burnt in July 1-16, is at 857,446. This number is at ~66.8% of the required threshold in 16 days, with 15 more days to go. ~76,400 acres were added today.
It seems practically certain by now...
Why might you be wrong?
Black swans only
Just engaging in the mildly nitpicking contest :-)
"This number is at ~66.8% of the required threshold in 16 days, with 15 more days to go"
Actually it's in 15 days, with 16 days to go (there is one day delay in that on day X at 9 AM Mountain Time the number reported is on X-1
Hehe... always open to friendly nitpicking contests 😉Here we go...
Actually, there is not - or, to be precise, there is, but due to the fine print of the reporting system, it is actually immaterial to our resolution. For our practical purposes, there is not, and we should not adjust for it.
I have written about it 2-3 times below (the argument looks temptingly reasonable, and many have fallen for it), but let me summarize here the evidence again.
For 2025:
For 2024:
For 2023:
So, evidently, at least for the 3 months of the recent past I have checked (July 2023, July 2024, June 2025), the cumulative number picked up by NOAA/NCEI (our resolution source) is the number reported by NIFC in their last daily report for the respective month, despite the fact that this number, due to the time of its publication (morning hours), does not actually include the last ~17 hours of the month under consideration (while it obviously includes the last ~17 hours of the previous month).
My 2 cents: it makes much sense for the NOAA/NCEI to utilize the reporting system of NIFC as is, and they have probably decided that trying to rectify such minor things in order to be "exact" would be... too much of nitpicking (😂) for no good reason...
So, the cumulative number reported by NIFC in their daily report of July 31, 2025 (morning...) will be the number used for resolution here. No reporting delays to take care and adjust for. The acres burned in the last ~17 hours of July are simply immaterial to us (NIFC will include them in their August 1 daily report, and NOAA/NCEI will subsequently count them in August).
Consequently, as we currently have data for July 1-16, as far as our question here is concerned, we have data for 16 days, with 15 days (i.e. 15 NIFC daily reports...) to go, and not vice-versa... The 16th NIFC daily report from today (assuming 7 reports/week) will be dated August 1, and it will be immaterial to us.
(Note: There is a discrepancy of ~10,000 acres for July 2022, but I trust we can stick to the recent evidence - some details of the reporting process might have changed since 2022).
Settled, or you think I am mistaken somewhere?
cc @TBall @Sheriff @khaz @doodlebug
Indeed we are, and although the situation currently is such that it makes such a distinction rather academic nitpicking and practically irrelevant, it could make the difference in a different version of the question (e.g. different threshold) and/or different daily burning rate; as I have noticed elsewhere: