Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Old Rocks]

The southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat and massive wild fires in the present La Nina. In the meantime, here in the West, we have a major deficit of snow and the long range forecast is for an El Nino this fall.

 

[1srelluc]

And?

 

[Old Rocks]

And?

So?

 

[1srelluc]

So?

 

[Anomalism]

What an unimpressive conversation so far. Does anybody feel like arguing against climate science?

 

[TNHarley]

Its hot in the southern hemisphere? When did that start happening?

 

[Anomalism]

Its hot in the southern hemisphere? When did that start happening?

Do you also believe AGW scientists are lying?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Its hot in the southern hemisphere? When did that start happening?

'He wants to worry about something hence this irrelevant thread.

 

[EMH]

What an unimpressive conversation so far. Does anybody feel like arguing against climate science?

"climate science" practiced by "climate scientists" is lying and fudging data to create a $20 trillion fraud on America.

FRAUD is not science
Fudging Data is not science
Parroting is not science
A "consensus" of conflicted taxpayer funded liars is not science


Science is theory and data. YOUR THEORY is that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Actual satellite and balloon data, and Surface Air Pressure, 100% refute your theory.

 

[Anomalism]

"climate science" practiced by "climate scientists" is lying and fudging data to create a $20 trillion fraud on America.

FRAUD is not science
Fudging Data is not science
Parroting is not science
A "consensus" of conflicted taxpayer funded liars is not science


Science is theory and data. YOUR THEORY is that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Actual satellite and balloon data, and Surface Air Pressure, 100% refute your theory.

What you’re doing here is rhetorical substitution. You’re replacing evidence with accusations. Calling something fraud isn’t an argument, it’s just a vibe dressed up as certainty. Science doesn’t live or die on who gets funding or whether you trust institutions; it lives or dies on whether the measurements line up with physical theory and make testable predictions. And in this case, they do, across independent systems that don’t share data pipelines: spectroscopy in labs, satellite radiance measurements, ocean heat content, glacier mass balance, isotopic signatures of carbon, and reanalysis models that successfully predict patterns like stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (which only greenhouse forcing produces).

Your claim about satellites, balloons, and surface pressure 100% refuting CO2 is just false. Satellites (like MSU/AMSU) directly measure increased outgoing longwave radiation being trapped in CO2 absorption bands. Radiosondes show warming in the lower troposphere and cooling aloft. Ocean heat content is rising. Meaning the system is gaining energy, not redistributing it.

Surface air pressure is irrelevant to radiative forcing; that’s another category error. Pressure doesn’t tell you energy balance any more than the weight of a blanket tells you how warm it keeps you. You’re not challenging climate science. You’re rejecting a century of radiative physics because it conflicts with a narrative you prefer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat and massive wild fires in the present La Nina. In the meantime, here in the West, we have a major deficit of snow and the long range forecast is for an El Nino this fall.

If only we had built more windmills last year, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What an unimpressive conversation so far. Does anybody feel like arguing against climate science?

Climate science is awesome!
Until morons use it to force us to spend $76 trillion to cool the planet by 0.1 degrees in 2100.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What an unimpressive conversation so far. Does anybody feel like arguing against climate science?

 

[HikerGuy83]

What an unimpressive conversation so far. Does anybody feel like arguing against climate science?

What you call "climate science" is what exactly (or more to the point)?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Do you also believe AGW scientists are lying?

What is an AGW scientist?

I seriously doubt they all carry the same credentials.

 

[EMH]

You’re replacing evidence with accusations.

False, I provide evidence that you cannot refute, outing you as a huge liar...

 

[EMH]

Ocean heat content is rising.

fudged fraud, exposed as such by NO BREAKOUT in cane activity...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Satellites (like MSU/AMSU) directly measure increased outgoing longwave radiation being trapped in CO2 absorption bands. Radiosondes show warming in the lower troposphere and cooling aloft

What did the ACTUAL DATA show prior to CO2 FRAUD fudging it??

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."

Surface air pressure is irrelevant

You wish. A planet's surface air pressure goes UP when it WARMS, as MARS does when it gets closer to Sun...

 

[Thinker101]

The southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat and massive wild fires in the present La Nina. In the meantime, here in the West, we have a major deficit of snow and the long range forecast is for an El Nino this fall.

Hey, you sure that isn't Southern California?

 

[Anomalism]

Climate science is awesome!
Until morons use it to force us to spend $76 trillion to cool the planet by 0.1 degrees in 2100.

That's a problem with policy, not the science.

 

[Anomalism]

What you call "climate science" is what exactly (or more to the point)?

The scientific study of the climate. Lol