Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:
> 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.

that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of the 
acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could end all 
human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem, that would 
still be growing

it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is

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


-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃