Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 14:58:19 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
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.
>
>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.

And you embrace minority views because they confirm your bias.

>They say:
>
>Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human influence. 
>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.
>
>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 
>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).
>
>The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & 
>Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming 
>artifactual.
>
>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 
>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).
>
>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 
>warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than 
>heat-related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
>
>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).
>
>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).
>
>Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo chambers 
>suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data manipulation).
>
>Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase lags 
>temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural outgassing).
>
>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.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away