Lake Erie Today

[Anomalism]

No skippy, I'm not. The climatologists and politicians have been in lockstep since the early 1990's. They both have the same goal, theft of taxpayer wealth, and power.

The two are inextricably linked.

You’re making a political argument, not a scientific one. The fact that some people in government or advocacy roles align with scientists on climate policy doesn’t retroactively invalidate the evidence those scientists produce. Independent labs, satellites, ice cores, ocean floats, and paleoclimate studies exist outside politics, and they don’t take orders from politicians or activists.

Conflating correlation in policy alignment with fraud in data is a logical leap, not a refutation of the underlying science.

 

[Anomalism]

No skippy, that statement shows just a small portion of the fraudulent nature of climate "science".

It shows exactly what I said.

 

[westwall]

You’re making a political argument, not a scientific one. The fact that some people in government or advocacy roles align with scientists on climate policy doesn’t retroactively invalidate the evidence those scientists produce. Independent labs, satellites, ice cores, ocean floats, and paleoclimate studies exist outside politics, and they don’t take orders from politicians or activists.

Conflating correlation in policy alignment with fraud in data is a logical leap, not a refutation of the underlying science.

No skippy, I am REFUTING a politico/PSEUDO scientific claim, made by your heroes.

 

[Anomalism]

No skippy, I am REFUTING a politico/PSEUDO scientific claim, made by your heroes.

You're not even arguing with substance anymore. Your posts have lost almost all of their steam. You've been backed into a corner and you're flailing now.

This is over. Lol

 

[westwall]

You're not even arguing with substance anymore. Your posts have lost almost all of their steam. You've been backed into a corner and you're flailing now.

This is over. Lol

I refuted whatever substance you claimed to have, and am now attacking your obvious politically based arguments.

You lost the scientific argument long ago, skippy. The second you resorted to your appeal to authority....you lost.

Now we are merely wiping out the little pockets of resistance.

 

[SaxonJackson]

We are now two decades after "An Inconvenient Truth", and when examined factually it has aged like fine milk.

The 20 foot increase in sea level, has not happened.
Ice free summers in the Arctic, has not happened.
A sharp increase in the number of hurricanes, has not happened.
An ice free Mount Kilimanjaro has not happened.

That film was absolute propaganda. And I find it extremely telling that the sequel was called "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power". Which had even more propaganda and political attacking, because that is so popular among those that love that kind of thing.

I think this is my favorite review of that film.

https://www.rogerebert.com/sundance/sundance-2017-an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power

One of my favorite "climate change" pictures and one of the most impactful:

 

[Anomalism]

I refuted whatever substance you claimed to have, and am now attacking your obvious politically based arguments.

You lost the scientific argument long ago, skippy. The second you resorted to your appeal to authority....you lost.

Now we are merely wiping out the little pockets of resistance.

You backed off of scientific arguments after I exposed your ignorance. You've probably gotten away with lying about being a scientist for years. It's not so easy against somebody that can actually detect your nonsense, is it?

Also, I intentionally never involved politics. You've completely departed from reality now. You're officially in full vibes mode.

 

[Anomalism]

One of my favorite "climate change" pictures and one of the most impactful:

View attachment 1219440

Local observations, like photos of a single landmark, can be affected by land subsidence, uplift, tides, camera angle, or storm timing.

Scientists don’t rely on isolated snapshots; they use long-term tide gauge records, satellite altimetry, and global averaging to measure sea level rise.

Those datasets show clear trends of rising oceans over the past century, independent of how one particular statue looks in two photos. One anecdotal visual cannot overturn decades of consistent, reproducible measurements.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Local observations, like photos of a single landmark, can be affected by land subsidence, uplift, tides, camera angle, or storm timing.

Scientists don’t rely on isolated snapshots; they use long-term tide gauge records, satellite altimetry, and global averaging to measure sea level rise.

Those datasets show clear trends of rising oceans over the past century, independent of how one particular statue looks in two photos. One anecdotal visual cannot overturn decades of consistent, reproducible measurements.

It doesn't take a scientist to see that the sea level in the late 1800s isn't much different that the sea level today. Scientists often give themselves too much credit for their academic prowess when a simple truth will suffice.

 

[Anomalism]

It doesn't take a scientist to see that the see level in the late 1800s isn't much different that the sea level today. Scientists often give themselves too much credit for their academic prowess when a simple truth will suffice.

Seeing a single coastline or one landmark with the naked eye isn’t enough to detect a global change of a few millimeters per year. Sea level rise is measured with precise instruments, which reveal a consistent upward trend over decades.

The simple truth you think you see can be misleading due to local land motion, tides, or perspective; the science isn’t about guessing from what looks similar, it’s about measurements that are reproducible and global in scale.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Seeing a single coastline or one landmark with the naked eye isn’t enough to detect a global change of a few millimeters per year. Sea level rise is measured with precise instruments, which reveal a consistent upward trend over decades.

The simple truth.you think you see can be misleading due to local land motion, tides, or perspective; the science isn’t about guessing from what looks similar, it’s about measurements that are reproducible and global in scale.

If "climate change" was such a threat, then why do so many climate alarmists buy mansions by the sea and fly around the world (almost daily) in jet planes?

 

[Anomalism]

If "climate change" was such a threat, then why do so many climate alarmists buying mansions by the sea and flying around the world (almost daily) in jet plains?

I never made a claim about how imminent or severe the threat is. My point is just what the science shows: global temperatures are rising, oceans are accumulating heat, and sea levels are slowly increasing.

Individual behavior doesn’t change the measurements or the physics. Highlighting selective personal choices doesn’t invalidate the decades of reproducible, global data.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Seeing a single coastline or one landmark with the naked eye isn’t enough to detect a global change of a few millimeters per year. Sea level rise is measured with precise instruments, which reveal a consistent upward trend over decades.

The simple truth.you think you see can be misleading due to local land motion, tides, or perspective; the science isn’t about guessing from what looks similar, it’s about measurements that are reproducible and global in scale.

You win!

 

[Mushroom]

One of my favorite "climate change" pictures and one of the most impactful:

View attachment 1219440

You mean it does not look like this?

 

[BS Filter]

You’re still fundamentally misunderstanding basic physics. Heat doesn’t vanish just because it’s at the surface, and it’s not optional. In fluids like the ocean, surface heating drives conduction, convection, and turbulence, which mix energy downward. Even a millimeter of warmed water creates gradients that carry energy deeper. IR absorption by CO2 only deposits energy at the very surface, but that energy is immediately redistributed throughout the water column via real, measurable fluid dynamics. This isn’t speculation or model hand waving. Argo floats, temperature profiles, and direct ocean heat content measurements confirm it. Saying “heat always rises so no heat enters water” is just incompatible with thermodynamics and well-established laboratory and field physics.

In other words, you're misunderstanding science that isn't even controversial or limited to climate science.

Science tells us they know that there have been at least three different ice ages, then warming between each ice age. Right?

 

[Anomalism]

Science tells us they know that there have been at least three different ice ages, then warming between each ice age. Right?

Yes. Over the past 800,000+ years, Earth’s climate has cycled through multiple glacial periods and interglacial periods. Ice core records from places like antarctica and Greenland show these repeated cycles of cooling and warming.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes. Over the past 800,000+ years, Earth’s climate has cycled through multiple glacial periods and interglacial periods. Ice core records from places like antarctica and Greenland show these repeated cycles of cooling and warming.

Well, there you go. It cools and it warms. Always has.

 

[Anomalism]

Well, there you go. It cools and it warms. Always has.

The key difference today is the rate and cause of warming. Current global temperatures are rising much faster than past natural cycles, and the rise is strongly linked to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Natural variability alone can’t account for the trends we’re seeing in the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Mushroom]

Science tells us they know that there have been at least three different ice ages, then warming between each ice age. Right?

More like well over a dozen, but most of them have left no real record. The following ice ages on the surface eliminated almost all the evidence of previous ones. And the proxy sources like ocean and ice cores have lost almost all data due to compression other than many more had happened. We can extract good data of the last 5 or so, after that it becomes increasingly vague and speculative.

But the current cycles have been going on for around 2.5 my. With recorded temperature changes (both warmer and colder) that were much faster and lasted much longer than our current one.

We know the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial came on extremely quickly, and was significantly warmer than it is today. Which is why the farthest back that the alarmists will go is the Younger Dryas (most do not like going past the Little Ice Age). They literally cherry pick a couple of centuries most times, or at the most only go back a couple of thousand years and use that as their "benchmark" for what they think the climate should be.

 

[BS Filter]

The key difference today is the rate and cause of warming. Current global temperatures are rising much faster than past natural cycles, and the rise is strongly linked to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Natural variability alone can’t account for the trends we’re seeing in the 20th and 21st centuries.

No one was around in those days so we don't know how fast temperatures rose.