Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North 
>>>>>>> America are
>>>>>>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared 
>>>>>>> to the long term history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point being that current trends no longer seem to be cyclical.
>>>>>> They seem to be more and more year after year.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of 
>>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part of a 
>>>>> greater cycle.
>>>>
>>>> what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol 
>>>
>>> The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's climate?
>>>
>>> It's not CO2 alone.
>>
>> that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and specific 
>> physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased heat in 
>> earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
>>
>> not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it needs to 
>> align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes that we 
>> measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ change in 
>> a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when compared to 
>> normal geological periodic cycles
>>
> We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human emissions.

wilson ur honestly just uneducated

> 
> There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific community who 
> say that other factors are at play and I've already provided that data 
> to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I 
> acknowledge that these are minority views.
> 
> They say:
> 
> Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human influence. 

which does not contradict humans driving change

> Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm Period 
> and the Medieval Warm Period (~900–1300 AD) were at least as warm or 
> warmer than today in many regions.
> 

how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature 
reconstruction wilson???

see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and do not 
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth 
seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking

> The current warming (~1.09°C since ~1880) is a natural recovery from the 
> Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 AD). Solar irradiance reconstructions (by 
> Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70–90% with 

lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry 
and never disclosed it on his papers

and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not negative 
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed and has 
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite data. if 
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but we don't.

> temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming aligns with 
> the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of increase is high, but 
> within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with 10°C/century 
> jumps).

younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it was a 
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts

> 
> The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & 
> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming 
> artifactual.

good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure increase

> 
> US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of 
> observation bias" corrections).  These adjustments applied to historical 
> records in major datasets have increased the long-term warming relative 
> to the raw data by adding ~0.3°C artificial warming post-1900, roughly 
> doubling the century-scale mean temperature trend.
> 
> The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared 
> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% saturated at 

CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising

> pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). 
> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1–1.5°C direct effect with no 
> feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave radiation 
> is increasing with warming, indicating potential negative feedbacks 
> (cooling clouds/reflection).

like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing 
radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic 
thermodynamics.

furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy 
imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of 
incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing

> 
> There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth 
> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global 
> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic feedback. And 

which has leveled off because of other constraints like nutrient flows 
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration from human 
activity)

> warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than heat- 
> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.

it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the "habitable" 
zones in other areas

> 
> The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud feedbacks to 
> nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the tropical 
> troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual balloon/ 
> radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models predict 
> warming roughly 1.5–2× higher than real observations. In fact every 
> model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. (McKitrick 
> & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, “Pervasive Warming Bias in 
> CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers”). Other studies of surface temperature or 
> different periods/layers find that a majority of CMIP models tend to 
> warm faster than observations.
> 
> There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or floods 
> when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; IPCC 
> SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for most extremes).

old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not 
physical measures. since then studies establishing high confidence in 
increase have been done.

never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt preparation 
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc

> 
> The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed 97% of 
> scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts ambiguously, 
> excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic AGW is ~1– 
> 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch).

the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in, 
consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero emissions has 
been reached

> 
> Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo chambers 
> suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data manipulation).

not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of 
climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct or data 
manipulation

> 
> Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase lags 
> temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural outgassing).

yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually functions 
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current impact or 
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.

> 
> In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural forces 
> drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and alarmism 
> stems from biased models/data.
> 

maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth.

again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where the extra 
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier 
arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all the 
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just seeking 
confirmation dud

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃