Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely

[Hafar1014]

Extreme winter events, or heavy ice coverage on the Great Lakes, are regional and short term. They don’t contradict global warming, which is measured as a sustained increase in average planetary energy over decades. Local weather fluctuations are superimposed on the long term trend; they’re the noise, not the signal. Modern warming is about the system wide energy imbalance driven by greenhouse gases, not individual winter storms.

So when its cold thats global warming

 

[Anomalism]

So when its cold thats global warming
View attachment 1217959

That’s a misunderstanding. Individual cold events don’t disprove global warming; they’re part of natural variability. Weather, not climate. Global warming is about the long term, system-wide increase in energy in the climate system. That means that over decades, the planet’s average energy and temperature rise, even while some regions or seasons experience temporary cold snaps. Short term events are local noise, not the global signal.

 

[ding]

You’re conflating trigger and driver, again. Yes, AMOC responds to density changes and yes, glacial interglacial cycles set the long term rhythm, but that’s the slow background, not the current spike. Modern warming isn’t paced by orbital cycles or post glacial residuals; it’s orders of magnitude faster and globally uniform in ways natural recovery cannot produce. Detection and attribution studies explicitly remove glacial and oceanic signals. Without anthropogenic CO2 forcing, the observed 20th–21st century trend disappears. Denying this is hand waving, not science.

I couldn't have explained it more clearly.

Why don't you play back what you think I have said.

 

[Anomalism]

I couldn't have explained it more clearly.

Why don't you play back what you think I have said.

You're obfuscating reality and claiming any of this contradicts the findings of scientists.

It doesn't.

 

[Hafar1014]

That’s a misunderstanding. Individual cold events don’t disprove global warming; they’re part of natural variability. Weather, not climate. Global warming is about the long term, system-wide increase in energy in the climate system. That means that over decades, the planet’s average energy and temperature rise, even while some regions or seasons experience temporary cold snaps. Short term events are local noise, not the global signal.

It sure is a misunderstanding. Antarctica has more ice, America had the coldest winter in years.
But
More people die from the cold than the heat so lives will be saved
Food production increases in warmer climates
Animal reproduction increases in warmer climates
More land will become arable and livable so the Earth can support more population.
Bring it on

 

[Anomalism]

It sure is a misunderstanding. Antarctica has more ice, America had the coldest winter in years.
But
More people die from the cold than the heat so lives will be saved
Food production increases in warmer climates
Animal reproduction increases in warmer climates
More land will become arable and livable so the Earth can support more population.
Bring it on

Those points are selective and ignore the full picture. Yes, some regions may temporarily benefit from warmer temperatures, but the global signal shows net harm: extreme heat waves, intensified storms, sea level rise, and disrupted rainfall patterns threaten food, water, and human health. Local cold or isolated benefits don’t negate a planet wide energy imbalance. Arguing that warming is good because some areas might benefit is cherry picking. Climate science is about integrated global consequences, not convenient anecdotes.

 

[Hafar1014]

Those points are selective and ignore the full picture. Yes, some regions may temporarily benefit from warmer temperatures, but the global signal shows net harm: extreme heat waves, intensified storms, sea level rise, and disrupted rainfall patterns threaten food, water, and human health. Local cold or isolated benefits don’t negate a planet wide energy imbalance. Arguing that warming is good because some areas might benefit is cherry picking. Climate science is about integrated global consequences, not convenient anecdotes.

None of which has happened. Thats your problem nothing has happened in fact we had zero storms this year on the east coast.
You might apply what you just said to your own post. Its perfect description of what you wrote.
We are not endangered like climate fanatics claimed

 

[Anomalism]

None of which has happened. Thats your problem nothing has happened in fact we had zero storms this year on the east coast.
You might apply what you just said to your own post. Its perfect description of what you wrote.
We are not endangered like climate fanatics claimed
View attachment 1217995

What you’re describing is weather, not climate. A single season with fewer storms on the East Coast doesn’t erase decades of globally observed trends: more intense hurricanes on average, record breaking heatwaves, accelerated sea level rise, glacial retreat, and shifting precipitation patterns worldwide. Saying “nothing happened this year here” is cherry picking one data point to dismiss a multi decade, planetary scale trend.

 

[Hafar1014]

What you’re describing is weather, not climate. A single season with fewer storms on the East Coast doesn’t erase decades of globally observed trends: more intense hurricanes on average, record breaking heatwaves, accelerated sea level rise, glacial retreat, and shifting precipitation patterns worldwide. Saying “nothing happened this year here” is cherry picking one data point to dismiss a multi decade, planetary scale trend.

Nothing has happened for the last 50 years

 

[Anomalism]

Nothing has happened for the last 50 years

That’s flatly false. The last 50 years have seen measurable, global changes. Average surface temperatures have risen about 1.2C, global sea level has risen roughly 20 cm, Arctic sea ice is at record lows, glaciers worldwide are retreating, and extreme weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency. This is documented in satellite records, tide gauges, and long-term observational datasets.

Dismissing half a century of empirical evidence because it doesn’t match one’s narrative is willful ignorance, not science.

 

[Hafar1014]

That’s flatly false. The last 50 years have seen measurable, global changes. Average surface temperatures have risen about 1.2C, global sea level has risen roughly 20 cm, Arctic sea ice is at record lows, glaciers worldwide are retreating, and extreme weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency. This is documented in satellite records, tide gauges, and long-term observational datasets.

Dismissing half a century of empirical evidence because it doesn’t match one’s narrative is willful ignorance, not science.

The empirical evidence contradicts the correlations that predicted warming flooding storms hurricanes tornadoes and ice caps melting. Do you know what empirical means. Did you get past HS

 

[Anomalism]

The empirical evidence contradicts the correlations that predicted warming flooding storms hurricanes tornadoes and ice caps melting. Do you know what empirical means. Did you get past HS

Empirical evidence is exactly what I’m citing: observed, measured changes in temperature, sea level, ice extent, and glacier mass over decades. These aren’t predictions. They are direct measurements from satellites, tide gauges, long term weather and ocean monitoring. The data shows that global warming is real, ongoing, and measurable. Cherry picking short term local events or claiming “nothing has happened” ignores the global, multi-decade trend, which is what climate science is based on.

 

[Hafar1014]

Empirical evidence is exactly what I’m citing: observed, measured changes in temperature, sea level, ice extent, and glacier mass over decades. These aren’t predictions. They are direct measurements from satellites, tide gauges, long term weather and ocean monitoring. The data shows that global warming is real, ongoing, and measurable. Cherry picking short term local events or claiming “nothing has happened” ignores the global, multi-decade trend, which is what climate science is based on.

Looking at a device isnt empirical. No data shows humans cause warming. Any fluctuations fall within the normal homeostasis of climate.

 

[Anomalism]

Looking at a device isnt empirical. No data shows humans cause warming. Any fluctuations fall within the normal homeostasis of climate.

That’s just flat wrong, both scientifically and philosophically. Empirical evidence means observations of the world, and instruments are literally how empirical science has worked since Galileo pointed a telescope at the sky. Satellites, tide gauges, thermometers, Argo floats, ice cores, those are extensions of human senses, not abstractions. And the data does not show normal homeostasis: it shows a persistent, global, multi decadal energy increase that matches the radiative forcing from rising greenhouse gases and cannot be reproduced by known natural drivers alone. Saying no data shows humans cause warming is equivalent to saying no data shows smoking causes cancer because you didn’t personally watch a lung cell mutate. That’s just refusing to accept how causal inference works in any mature science.

 

[EMH]

You’re confusing small, predictable variations with some kind of wild, instantaneous jump. Milankovitch cycles don’t require the Earth to hop to a new orbit or tilt, and they don’t change the day noticeably on human timescales. What they are is fully calculable from celestial mechanics. Eccentricity oscillates on ~100k year cycles, obliquity on ~41k, and precession on ~19–23k. These are measurable, predicted by Newtonian gravity, and confirmed in the geological record. That is direct, independent evidence. Denying it is not a disagreement with climate science; it’s a denial of classical mechanics itself.

If your bar for evidence is “Earth must leap to a completely new orbit overnight” then yes, by that standard nothing counts, but that’s not how science works. Evidence doesn’t need to be sensational to be real; it needs to be observable, repeatable, and consistent with physical laws. Milankovitch cycles meet all three criteria. And yes, I can answer basic climate questions, but only if we start from reality rather than insist that centuries of physics and geology are babble.

You are a sick person incapable of doing anything but lying your ass off.

You have ZERO evidence of any change in Earth's orbit at all, ZERO.

 

[ding]

You're obfuscating reality and claiming any of this contradicts the findings of scientists.

It doesn't.

I believe the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record 100% disproves the flawed modeling and red herring arguments of the climate community.

They have assumed there is no natural climate variability and have attributed all natural climate variability to CO2. I believe they are willfully disingenuous.

 

[Anomalism]

You are a sick person incapable of doing anything but lying your ass off.

You have ZERO evidence of any change in Earth's orbit at all, ZERO.

I’m not claiming the orbit changes overnight or that anything sensational happens in a human lifetime. The evidence comes from precise astronomical calculations and geological records. Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession all vary on predictable timescales, and these variations are confirmed in sediment cores, ice layers, and other proxies. That’s the evidence: measurable, repeatable, and fully consistent with Newtonian mechanics.

Again, denying it isn’t disputing climate science. It’s denying well established celestial mechanics. You're arguing against Newtonian physics. You're quite ignorant on this matter.

 

[Anomalism]

I believe the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record 100% disproves the flawed modeling and red herring arguments of the climate community.

They have assumed there is no natural climate variability and have attributed all natural climate variability to CO2. I believe they are willfully disingenuous.

Climate scientists do not ignore natural variability; in fact, it’s explicitly quantified in every detection and attribution study.

Volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, ocean oscillations, and internal variability are all included to establish a natural baseline. The observed warming over the last century is measured above and beyond that baseline. That residual matches the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Claiming that all natural variability is attributed to CO2 misrepresents the science. It’s the leftover after accounting for natural factors that points to human influence, not a blanket assumption.

You are flat wrong about this, and I think you know it. I'm getting the impression you're not an honest skeptic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No warming in Antarctica

 

[EMH]

The evidence comes from precise astronomical calculations and geological records.

so WHERE ARE THOSE????