Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/4/26 3:51 PM, Dude 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.
> 
> Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human activity 
> accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.

i haven't ignored it dud. i've responding several times and u just don't 
fucking read:

not all wildfires are the same dud. those started by lightning strikes 
are massively more destructive than those started by humans causes, to 
the point where >90% of the total area burned (in canada) comes from 
lightning ignition.

i know basic logic escapes you dud, but to be clear: we could remove 
_all_ direct human ignited fires, and 90% of the wildfire problem of 
canada would still be there unsolved

> 
>> 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 🙃