Like I stated in the initial post, human activity was, is, and continues to be, the primary cause for climate change in all it's forms. The wildfires we're seeing in Siberia, California, and Australia are a direct result of this. As far as the "added heat" hypothesis, I merely stated that locally, concerning the areas directly affected by active wildfires, temperatures would be raised to a degree, similar to what an article I remembered stated occurred with the Independence Day fireworks.

After my last post there, I've taken the liberty of looking up the articles I remembered for citation purposes. Here is a NOVA article on the effects of aircraft contrails in climate regulation, as well as a BBC article disputing the claim that they heat the environment - rather, it seems, they have the opposite effect. Unfortunately, no matter how far I searched, I couldn't find the article concerning the Independence firework's effects on national temperature, or for that matter, anything concerning the effects of fireworks on atmospheric temperature. The closest things I could find were a Forbes article on fireworks and climate change, as well as a similar scholarly paper concerning residual particulates - it may be that I was misrepresenting that paper when I thought of fireworks and climate-change. As a result, until I, or someone else here, can find the article in question, I'm gonna have to retract that statement. Sorry!

I haven't completed dimensional analysis at college yet, so I'm not going to go into the numbers you posted; but from what I do understand of physics, the idea of heat from the 20th Century nuclear tests contributing to climate change strikes me as incorrect - these were separate, brief events which were distanced by spaces of hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart, as well as periods between weeks and months at a time. The image my sophomoric brain had in regards to the wildfires was something akin to a fireplace heating the room it was in - a continuous effect that would affect the area it was in, but not beyond; and only for as long as it occurred. The result would be something similar to what RL described - non-negligible, but not overly significant either; being the result of high temperatures instead of their initial cause, and rapidly diminishing in effect outside of their immediate areas.

Still, the particulate and carbon output is definitely gonna ramp up climate change effects - so while these fires didn't start themselves, they're definitely helping to set the stage for future ones...