Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:
>> On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the power 
>>>> of snip.
>>>>
>>>> Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
>>>
>>> to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed 
>>> from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority of 
>>> the total acreage burned.
>>>
>> You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
>>
>> That should be a wrap!
>>
>> Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
> 
> the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by lightning 
> ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate change caused 
> temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the ecology, making 
> everything more flammable
>
Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the 
United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
 >

>>
>>>>
>>>>  >>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>