Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>You snipped this out:
>
>Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
>strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
>
>Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest 
>ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.

And you repeated it.  So you must want to see it ignored again.

>Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human activity 
>accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
> >
>> 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
>> 
-- 
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