The fires that have ravaged Los Angeles over the past week were larger and burned hotter than they would have in a world without planet-warming fossil fuel pollution, a new analysis suggests.

Climate change could be blamed for around 25% of the fuel available for the fires, according to the rapid research from scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles. The report is clear in saying the fires likely still would have occurred in a world without climate pollution, but it concludes they would have been “somewhat smaller and less intense.”

The result raises the question of whether the fires could have been controllable were it not for the fire-fueling effects of climate change. The UCLA scientists refer to their analysis as a “starting point” for deeper studies.

Twelve fires have ignited in the Los Angeles area since January 7, when a once-in-a-decade Santa Ana wind storm blew across Southern California’s drought-parched landscape. Since then, more than 60 square miles have been charred and more than 12,000 structures have burned, such as homes, businesses, sheds and garages.

Four days after they began, the Eaton and Palisades fires had grown enough that CalFire ranked them the first and second-most destructive in Southern California history.