GMST = BS

[Anomalism]

You seem obsessed with spewing absolute bullshit.

Are you claiming the CO2 level over North America differed than over Greenland?

Did CO2 flee from Greenland and clump over north America?

LOL!!!

How was the Sun different from Greenland vs. NA?

Same Sun, same Earth, two different land masses receiving the exact same amount of Sun energy....



You don't go two straight sentences without lying your ass off....

You’re misreading the mechanism entirely. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere; it doesn’t flee or clump regionally, so no, concentrations over Greenland weren’t lower than North America. The heterogeneity I’m talking about isn’t about the source of energy, it’s about where the energy goes after it arrives. The Sun delivers roughly the same incoming radiation, yes, but the climate system is a coupled fluid of air, water, and ice. Ocean currents, atmospheric jet streams, and regional circulation patterns redistribute heat unevenly. Greenland can cool while North America warms because one region loses more heat via local circulation shifts while another accumulates it. That’s physics.

Plate tectonics and static geography don’t explain these shifts. They happen on millennial scales. What you see in glacial interglacial variability is orbital forcing + greenhouse feedbacks creating uneven regional responses. Claiming “same sun = same temperature everywhere” ignores the redistribution mechanics entirely. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of fluid dynamics in the climate system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because it clearly documents that air pressure is correlated with temperature.... duh...

Post the solutions that prove your claim.

Use the equation to find sea-level SAP at 288 K and then at 300 K.

 

[EMH]

CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere; it doesn’t flee or clump regionally, so no, concentrations over Greenland weren’t lower than North America

That is a CONFESSION that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either North America melting or Greenland freezing....

Greenland can cool while North America warms because one region loses more heat via local circulation shifts while another accumulates it

A pathetic attempt to divert from the truth, that all land within 600 miles to a pole is in ice age, all land outside is not, and you cannot refute that.

Planets Mars and Pluto have polar caps. The difference between those and Earth is that those sublime straight to gas, while Earth's caps have a significant liquid stage. It is the liquid near the poles that is the difference. Liquid water prevents the "polar capping" aka ICE AGE to occur over water. Land is required...

This is what dictates Earth's climate, how much land is within 600 miles of a pole.

Two polar oceans = Earth has little to no ice = warmer, wetter, much higher surface air pressure = jurassic
Two polar continents = "two Antarcticas" = colder, drier, lower surface air pressure.

 

[Anomalism]

That is a CONFESSION that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either North America melting or Greenland freezing....








A pathetic attempt to divert from the truth, that all land within 600 miles to a pole is in ice age, all land outside is not, and you cannot refute that.

Planets Mars and Pluto have polar caps. The difference between those and Earth is that those sublime straight to gas, while Earth's caps have a significant liquid stage. It is the liquid near the poles that is the difference. Liquid water prevents the "polar capping" aka ICE AGE to occur over water. Land is required...

This is what dictates Earth's climate, how much land is within 600 miles of a pole.

Two polar oceans = Earth has little to no ice = warmer, wetter, much higher surface air pressure = jurassic
Two polar continents = "two Antarcticas" = colder, drier, lower surface air pressure.

CO2 forcing isn’t about local snapshots. It’s about the global energy balance. Greenland can cool while North America warms because circulation patterns redistribute heat unevenly; it doesn’t mean CO2 caused one region to melt or freeze independently. Ice sheets require specific conditions of persistent cold and snow accumulation, which is why latitude alone doesn’t dictate glaciation. Being within 600 miles of a pole is neither a universal law nor sufficient for an ice age; mass balance depends on precipitation, temperature, ocean currents, and feedbacks. Mars and Pluto’s polar caps are icy due to their atmosphere and temperatures, but they don’t involve the same climate system or hydrology as Earth, so the analogy doesn’t establish a law about terrestrial glaciation. Ice age dynamics on Earth are controlled by orbital cycles, greenhouse gas feedbacks, and circulation, not a fixed distance threshold from the pole.

 

[EMH]

Being within 600 miles of a pole is neither a universal law nor sufficient for an ice age

Because you "the science" says so, never mind ALL DATA VALIDATES and NO DATA REFUTES, a rather inconvenient position for "the science" but "the science" isn't about truth or data, it is about TREASON AGAINST AMERICA.

 

[Anomalism]

Because you "the science" says so, never mind ALL DATA VALIDATES and NO DATA REFUTES, a rather inconvenient position for "the science" but "the science" isn't about truth or data, it is about TREASON AGAINST AMERICA.

At this point you’re not engaging with evidence at all. You’re reacting emotionally to having your core assumption challenged. Calling it treason is a tell. That’s not science, that’s ideological defense. Everything I’ve referenced is physically quantifiable, repeatable, and openly published: radiative transfer equations, satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation, ocean heat content, orbital mechanics, ice mass balance. Dismissing mechanisms you don’t understand as bullshit isn’t skepticism, it’s avoidance. You’re not refuting data; you’re substituting outrage for argument because the actual physics doesn’t support your conclusion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Convection is baked in because the climate system is governed by energy conservation, not by which physical pathway the energy happens to take. GMST is derived from the temperature field of the atmosphere and oceans, which already emerges from radiation, convection, latent heat transport, and circulation acting together. Those processes don’t sit outside the budget; they are literally the mechanisms by which the budget equilibrates.

You’re treating convection as if it’s some external variable that has to be manually added, when in reality it’s an internal transport process. Moving energy around inside the system does not change the system’s total energy content, it just redistributes it. GMST isn’t a model of mechanisms, it’s a state variable summarizing the system outcome of all mechanisms combined.

As for margins of error, observational GMST uncertainty is on the order of +0.05–0.1C for recent decades, and the standard deviation of spatial temperature is large by design because Earth is heterogeneous. That doesn’t invalidate the mean any more than the existence of waves invalidates sea level. The entire point of a global mean is to integrate a noisy field into a conserved signal.

Saying “statistics are designed to give you the answers you want” is just conceding you don’t have a physical objection anymore. That’s not a critique of GMST, that’s a rejection of measurement itself. At that point you’re not doing climate physics; you’re doing vibes.

One of us is talking about conservation laws and state variables. The other is allergic to averages because they don’t feel intuitively satisfying.

Conservation is just one law ... 2LoT covers the physical pathways, which obviously you're ignoring ... and you're ignoring the equal partition theorem ... if energy can follow a pathway, it will ... only one pathway is measure with GMST ...

Now you've gone ignorant on us ... Global Mean SURFACE Temperature is the temperature of the Earth's SURFACE, not the atmosphere ... neither latent energy or circulation occur at this surface, that all happens aloft ... and thermometers used to gather this information to average are only accurate to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... if and when you take a science class, they'll teach you how to read a scientific instrument ...

Go back to the OP ... the average temperature of Greenland and Sahara is meaningless ... all you offer is double talk and New Speak ... can't even find an average, can you? ...

 

[Anomalism]

Conservation is just one law ... 2LoT covers the physical pathways, which obviously you're ignoring ... and you're ignoring the equal partition theorem ... if energy can follow a pathway, it will ... only one pathway is measure with GMST ...

Now you've gone ignorant on us ... Global Mean SURFACE Temperature is the temperature of the Earth's SURFACE, not the atmosphere ... neither latent energy or circulation occur at this surface, that all happens aloft ... and thermometers used to gather this information to average are only accurate to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... if and when you take a science class, they'll teach you how to read a scientific instrument ...

Go back to the OP ... the average temperature of Greenland and Sahara is meaningless ... all you offer is double talk and New Speak ... can't even find an average, can you? ...

You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what a state variable is and what GMST represents. GMST isn’t a thermometer reading from one spot; it’s the integrated outcome of the entire system, including radiation, convection, latent heat, and circulation. Those mechanisms are not ignored. They’re baked into the energy balance. Moving energy around doesn’t change the total energy. It redistributes it. That’s not double talk, that’s thermodynamics 101.

Your argument about surface only thermometers and whole degree resolution is equally irrelevant. GMST is calculated from gridded datasets that interpolate, integrate, and smooth millions of measurements across space and time. The math accounts for heterogeneity; you're just dismissing it because it feels imprecise to you, who doesn't actually understand it. Greenland vs Sahara? That’s exactly why we average spatially, to capture the planetary energy state, not cherry pick extremes. You’re arguing against conservation laws, integration, and measurement theory itself, and calling it science. That’s kindergarten level ignorance.

 

[ding]

That’s exactly why we average spatially, to capture the planetary energy state, not cherry pick extremes. You’re arguing against conservation laws, integration, and measurement theory itself, and calling it science. That’s kindergarten level ignorance.

And they are doing it wrong because they want to wash out climate variability.

The only region that matters is the Arctic. If the Arctic is warming, the planet is warming. If the Arctic is cooling, the planet is cooling. But what you don't want to see is the variability of the Arctic because then you would have to admit that the planet's climate is naturally fluctuating. You'd have to ADMIT that the models can't model that kind of variability so that the models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. Then you wouldn't be able to say the models show ALL warming is anthropogenic.

 

[Anomalism]

And they are doing it wrong because they want to wash out climate variability.

The only region that matters is the Arctic. If the Arctic is warming, the planet is warming. If the Arctic is cooling, the planet is cooling. But what you don't want to see is the variability of the Arctic because then you would have to admit that the planet's climate is naturally fluctuating. You'd have to ADMIT that the models can't model that kind of variability so that the models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. Then you wouldn't be able to say the models show ALL warming is anthropogenic.

This argument collapses the whole planet into one region.

The Arctic matters a lot. It’s a sensitive amplifier because of ice albedo feedback. But it is not the control knob for Earth’s total energy. Global temperature is defined as a spatial average precisely because heat can move around. The Arctic can cool temporarily while the planet as a whole gains energy, and vice versa, depending on circulation patterns. Redistribution is not the same thing as net gain or loss.

If only the Arctic matters, then explain why global ocean heat content, measured down to 2000 meters, keeps rising even during periods when Arctic surface trends fluctuate. The ocean stores over 90% of the excess energy. That’s not washed out variability; that’s integrated physics.

The claim that models say all warming is anthropogenic is a strawman. Detection and attribution studies explicitly include natural variability.

Focusing on one highly variable region and declaring it the sole metric of planetary state is ignoring conservation of energy and the basic definition of a global mean.