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

[EMH]

Claiming fudged canes

1. CO2 FRAUD fudges
2. the cane that hit Jamaica did Cat 1 damage despite being reported as a Cat 5

 

[Anomalism]

1. CO2 FRAUD fudges
2. the cane that hit Jamaica did Cat 1 damage despite being reported as a Cat 5

Your arguments have lost almost all of their steam. You've basically just got your fingers in your ears now. This conversation is probably hard when you don't actually understand the topic.

 

[EMH]

Your arguments have lost almost all of their steam. You've basically just got your fingers in your ears now. This conversation is probably hard when you don't actually understand the topic.

• 
  
• 
  

 

[Anomalism]

• 
  
• 
  

Okay?

 

[EMH]

Okay?

So where is the Cat 5 damage?

 

[Anomalism]

So where is the Cat 5 damage?

You’re mixing up two completely different things: how hurricanes are classified and how much damage you personally expect to see afterward.


A Category 5 isn’t defined by looking catastrophic enough. It’s defined by measured sustained wind speeds taken by aircraft, dropsondes, satellites, and pressure data. Damage is an outcome, not the metric. So asking “where is the Cat 5 damage?” is like asking “where is the 9.0 earthquake rubble?” That’s not how the scale works. The number comes from instruments, not vibes or photos on social media.

You’re assuming damage scales cleanly with category, and it just doesn’t. Damage depends on where the eyewall actually hits, how big it is, how fast the storm moves, terrain, building codes, population density, and dumb luck. A compact Cat 5 that clips land or gets disrupted by mountains can easily produce less visible damage than a slow, sprawling Cat 3 that parks over a city. Jamaica’s terrain alone is enough to shred peak winds quickly. So you can have true Cat 5 intensity in the core with much lower apparent damage on land.

What you’re really doing here is replacing physical measurement with aesthetic judgment: “it doesn’t look bad enough to me, therefore the data must be fake.” You're eyeballing reality and declaring the instruments wrong.

 

[EMH]

You’re mixing up two completely different things: how hurricanes are classified and how much damage you personally expect to see afterward.


A Category 5 isn’t defined by looking catastrophic enough. It’s defined by measured sustained wind speeds taken by aircraft, dropsondes, satellites, and pressure data. Damage is an outcome, not the metric. So asking “where is the Cat 5 damage?” is like asking “where is the 9.0 earthquake rubble?” That’s not how the scale works. The number comes from instruments, not vibes or photos on social media.

You’re assuming damage scales cleanly with category, and it just doesn’t. Damage depends on where the eyewall actually hits, how big it is, how fast the storm moves, terrain, building codes, population density, and dumb luck. A compact Cat 5 that clips land or gets disrupted by mountains can easily produce less visible damage than a slow, sprawling Cat 3 that parks over a city. Jamaica’s terrain alone is enough to shred peak winds quickly. So you can have true Cat 5 intensity in the core with much lower apparent damage on land.

What you’re really doing here is replacing physical measurement with aesthetic judgment: “it doesn’t look bad enough to me, therefore the data must be fake.” You're eyeballing reality and declaring the instruments wrong.

That was a CAT 1 storm and the NWS showed a doctored video of another storm and lied about it.



It is funny this guy.

"oceans are warming" just don't notice no breakout in cane activity.

"it was a Cat 5" that did Cat 1 damage

"the ice is melting" but I can't show you a photo of "ocean rise."

 

[Anomalism]

That was a CAT 1 storm and the NWS showed a doctored video of another storm and lied about it.



It is funny this guy.

"oceans are warming" just don't notice no breakout in cane activity.

"it was a Cat 5" that did Cat 1 damage

"the ice is melting" but I can't show you a photo of "ocean rise."

That’s classic cherry picking and conflating separate phenomena. Just because you don’t see a catastrophic image of a hurricane or ocean rise doesn’t mean the data is false. Category ratings are based on measured wind speed and pressure, not on how dramatic the damage looks.

Similarly, ocean warming and ice melt are observed across millions of measurements, not Instagram snapshots. Expecting single, visually obvious events to “prove” systemic change is misunderstanding how science quantifies trends versus anecdotes.

 

[EMH]

Just because you don’t see a catastrophic image of a hurricane or ocean rise doesn’t mean the data is false

Translation - the claim is that 20 trillion tons of net ice has melted on Earth, just do not notice that caused precisely ZERO ocean "rise" and precisely ZERO rise in surface air pressure... but it still melted, because CO2 FRAUD says so...

 

[Anomalism]

Translation - the claim is that 20 trillion tons of net ice has melted on Earth, just do not notice that caused precisely ZERO ocean "rise" and precisely ZERO rise in surface air pressure... but it still melted, because CO2 FRAUD says so...

You’re conflating large scale averages with local snapshots. Ocean rise and atmospheric pressure don’t respond instantly or uniformly to ice melt. When 20 trillion tons of ice melts, it’s spread across oceans, and thermal expansion plus redistribution takes time to measurably affect local sea levels and pressures. The fact that you don’t notice a dramatic spike at a single location doesn’t invalidate the measurements.

 

[EMH]

You’re conflating large scale averages with local snapshots. Ocean rise and atmospheric pressure don’t respond instantly or uniformly to ice melt. When 20 trillion tons of ice melts, it’s spread across oceans, and thermal expansion plus redistribution takes time to measurably affect local sea levels and pressures. The fact that you don’t notice a dramatic spike at a single location doesn’t invalidate the measurements.

The "measurements" from CO2 FRAUD are 100% pure

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• Visual Search
• Save
• View image
• 
  More

 

[Anomalism]

The "measurements" from CO2 FRAUD are 100% pure

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• Visual Search
• Save
• View image
• 
  More

Lol

Look at the state of your position. You're posting pictures of fudge and not actually saying anything.

 

[EMH]

"Ocean rise and atmospheric pressure don’t respond instantly or uniformly to ice melt. When 20 trillion tons of ice melts, it’s spread across oceans, and thermal expansion plus redistribution takes time to measurably affect local sea levels and pressures"




that would take days for the oceans to re-balance. Planetary air pressure responds faster than you think, almost instantly in fact.

 

[Anomalism]

"Ocean rise and atmospheric pressure don’t respond instantly or uniformly to ice melt. When 20 trillion tons of ice melts, it’s spread across oceans, and thermal expansion plus redistribution takes time to measurably affect local sea levels and pressures"




that would take days for the oceans to re-balance. Planetary air pressure responds faster than you think, almost instantly in fact.

That’s just physically wrong. The oceans don’t rebalance in day. You’re talking about moving mass and heat through a stratified, rotating fluid that’s 4 km deep on average and coupled to wind, currents, and gravity. Even large scale redistributions like El Nino take months to years to propagate globally.

As for air pressure: melting ice does not create a sudden global pressure jump because the mass was already part of the Earth system, and the added water spreads out over 361 million km², changing mean sea level by millimeters per year, not meters overnight.

There is no mechanism in fluid dynamics or atmospheric physics that allows instant global pressure or sea level response to gradual cryosphere melt.

 

[EMH]

You’re talking about moving mass and heat through a stratified, rotating fluid that’s 4 km deep

When ice melts, it doesn't go 4km deep, it goes on or near the surface.... and the water around Antarctica is not much above 32F.



Your comments about air pressure in a container, and a planet qualifies as a container, are laughable. Air pressure resets almost instantaneously. New air from melting Antarctic ice would simply push air away with superior force. It doesn't have to travel to North America to reset the global air pressure. It does that right as it comes out and increases the number of atmospheric gas molecules.

 

[Anomalism]

When ice melts, it doesn't go 4km deep, it goes on or near the surface.... and the water around Antarctica is not much above 32F.



Your comments about air pressure in a container, and a planet qualifies as a container, are laughable. Air pressure resets almost instantaneously. New air from melting Antarctic ice would simply push air away with superior force. It doesn't have to travel to North America to reset the global air pressure. It does that right as it comes out and increases the number of atmospheric gas molecules.

Ice melt does enter at the surface initially, but the heat and mass don’t stay static there. Stratification, mixing from winds, tides, and thermohaline circulation distributes energy and water downward and around the globe over time. Ocean density, currents, and temperature gradients control how meltwater spreads; it’s not just a surface push that instantaneously adjusts global pressure. Atmospheric pressure doesn’t respond like a rigid piston; local changes redistribute via winds and convection, but the system is buffered and coupled to the ocean. The physics is more complex than just adding molecules to the top layer.

 

[EMH]

Ice melt does enter at the surface initially, but the heat and mass don’t stay static there.

LOL!!!

Ice melting produces very cold water. The water around AA and Greenland is very cold. Your point here about heat is laughable.

. Ocean density, currents, and temperature gradients control how meltwater spreads; it’s not just a surface push that instantaneously adjusts global pressure.

LOL!!!

Pressure??

We're talking about oceans.... not air.

Atmospheric pressure doesn’t respond like a rigid piston; local changes redistribute via winds and convection, but the system is buffered and coupled to the ocean. The physics is more complex than just adding molecules to the top layer

You love throwing around big words that have no real connection to the issue at hand.

Add gas to atmosphere = surface air pressure rises instantly
Heat the atmosphere = surface air pressure rises instantly, proven so by Pluto, Mars, and Earth


Your and CO2 FRAUD's big problem = Earth SAP not rising = Earth not warming = Earth experiencing no ongoing net ice melt

 

[Anomalism]

LOL!!!

Ice melting produces very cold water. The water around AA and Greenland is very cold. Your point here about heat is laughable.






LOL!!!

Pressure??

We're talking about oceans.... not air.






You love throwing around big words that have no real connection to the issue at hand.

Add gas to atmosphere = surface air pressure rises instantly
Heat the atmosphere = surface air pressure rises instantly, proven so by Pluto, Mars, and Earth


Your and CO2 FRAUD's big problem = Earth SAP not rising = Earth not warming = Earth experiencing no ongoing net ice melt

You don't understand how science works.

 

[EMH]

You don't understand how science works.

LOL!!!!


To you, science means

1. parroting
2. fudging data
3. fraud
4. giving long answers with big words trying to cover up your lies

 

[Anomalism]

4. giving long answers with big words trying to cover up your lies

"I don't understand your long answers and big words, so it's all fake."

Did you think real scientific explanations would fit on a bumper sticker?