Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Anomalism]

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

I wonder how much you can bloviate before realizing you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Anomalism]

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

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

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."







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

This is just conspiracy nonsense plus category errors. Ocean heat content is measured by independent physical instruments (ARGO floats, ship profiles, buoys) and shows a smooth, monotonic increase. Hurricanes are not a calorimeter. Tropical cyclone frequency is a chaotic, regional phenomenon dominated by wind shear, aerosols, and internal variability; it has never been a primary metric for planetary energy balance.

On the satellite point, you're literally citing the correction of an error as proof of fraud. The early MSU/AMSU datasets had known orbital decay and sensor drift; once that was corrected, the result was consistent with radiosondes and surface data. That’s not fudging, that’s what real science looks like. Identify systematic error, correct it, converge across methods.

And the Mars pressure analogy is nonsense. Mars’ seasonal pressure change is due to CO2 literally freezing and sublimating at the poles. Earth’s atmosphere is not condensing onto the ground every winter, so surface pressure has no reason to track temperature. You're importing a mechanism that doesn’t even exist on this planet.

 

[fncceo]

The southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat and massive wild fires

They didn’t seem to mind

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

You do realize it summer down there... You know summer when it can get hot and dry in certain spots


okay then

 

[Anomalism]

They didn’t seem to mind

View attachment 1218868

That dude has six fingers on his right hand and a foot attached to his... whatever the **** that thing is.

 

[EMH]

the correction of an error

LOL!!!

The satellites show no warming.

Oh no, that's an "error" that needs to be "corrected" aka FUDGED.

 

[westwall]

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

Present some actual science and we will. You present computer derived fiction.

That's easily ignored.

 

[EMH]

And the Mars pressure analogy is nonsense. Mars’ seasonal pressure change is due to CO2 literally freezing and sublimating at the poles.

There are two primary factors = temperature and amount of gas in the atmosphere.

When Mars warms as it gets closer to Sun, both come into play.

Earth is the same way. Trapped inside the ice age glacier on AA is more gas than is in atmosphere now. For every foot of snow there is 11 inches of air and one inch of water. Compress that under 10000 ice core layers to a fraction of an inch and that air is still there. Melt the ice and the atmospheric gas count rapidly increases.

YOUR SIDE claims Earth is warming, SAP refutes that.
YOUR SIDE claims Earth is experiencing an ongoing net ice melt, SAP refutes that.


And SAP is a serious threat to CO2 fraud since it is a planetary measure and your side can't fudge the data everywhere.

 

[Anomalism]

LOL!!!

The satellites show no warming.

Oh no, that's an "error" that needs to be "corrected" aka FUDGED.

The satellites do show warming once the known orbital decay and sensor drift issues are corrected. That’s not fudging, that’s calibrating instruments to account for physical limitations, exactly what any experimentalist would do. Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same trend. Calling corrections fraud just shows a refusal to engage with the actual physics and measurement realities. Science isn’t magic; it’s iterative measurement, error correction, and cross-validation.

 

[westwall]

The satellites do show warming once the known orbital decay and sensor drift issues are corrected. That’s not fudging, that’s calibrating instruments to account for physical limitations, exactly what any experimentalist would do. Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same trend. Calling corrections fraud just shows a refusal to engage with the actual physics and measurement realities. Science isn’t magic; it’s iterative measurement, error correction, and cross-validation.

Yes, that's fudging. They also run the measurements from the satellites through coupled computer global warming models, thus fudging the information even more.

 

[Anomalism]

Yes, that's fudging. They also run the measurements from the satellites through coupled computer global warming models, thus fudging the information even more.

You’re conflating two very different things. The satellite measurements themselves are empirical data, raw radiances recorded by instruments in orbit. Calibrating for orbital decay, sensor drift, or diurnal sampling isn’t fudging; it’s correcting for known physical limitations of the instruments so the measurements reflect reality. Those are standard experimental practices in every branch of physics and engineering.

Running data through a climate model for analysis doesn’t change the original measurements; it’s just a tool to integrate multiple datasets and project trends. The observed warming signal comes directly from the measurements themselves, MSU/AMSU radiances, radiosondes, and surface instruments, all independently showing the same trends. Labeling this fudging ignores the physical reality of radiative transfer and energy accumulation.

 

[westwall]

You’re conflating two very different things. The satellite measurements themselves are empirical data, raw radiances recorded by instruments in orbit. Calibrating for orbital decay, sensor drift, or diurnal sampling isn’t fudging; it’s correcting for known physical limitations of the instruments so the measurements reflect reality. Those are standard experimental practices in every branch of physics and engineering.

Running data through a climate model for analysis doesn’t change the original measurements; it’s just a tool to integrate multiple datasets and project trends. The observed warming signal comes directly from the measurements themselves, MSU/AMSU radiances, radiosondes, and surface instruments, all independently showing the same trends. Labeling this fudging ignores the physical reality of radiative transfer and energy accumulation.

Indeed they are, so why then is ALL of that raw data run through CGCM's?


Riiiiight, so those "scientists" you're so proud of can manipulate the results.

In other words falsifying data.

 

[EMH]

The satellites do show warming once the known orbital decay and sensor drift issues are corrected.

LMFAO!!

How do we measure Pluto's temperature and Mars' temperature?

LOL!!!

You are arguing that distance matters, it doesn't, the readings are the same.

 

[EMH]

Running data through a climate model for analysis doesn’t change the original measurements

Actually, the late Michael Chrichton proved that Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick chart wasn't about data at all, it was an algorithm that returned a hockey stick chart regardless of the data fed to it.

 

[Anomalism]

Indeed they are, so why then is ALL of that raw data run through CGCM's?


Riiiiight, so those "scientists" you're so proud of can manipulate the results.

In other words falsifying data.

That’s a misunderstanding of how climate science integrates data. Raw MSU/AMSU radiances, radiosonde temperatures, and surface measurements are direct empirical data, not models. CGCMs are tools for context and projection, not a way to fabricate warming. They help scientists compare multiple datasets consistently and estimate trends under varying scenarios. They don’t create the original measurements.

You can verify this in real publications: the Argo floats, satellite radiances, and ocean heat content measurements exist independently of any model.

Argo program

The Argo program is an international program that uses temperature/salinity profiling float to measure the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean.

www.aoml.noaa.gov

Ocean Warming - Earth Indicator - NASA Science

Water has a high heat capacity, which means it can store a lot of heat. The atmosphere has warmed from increased greenhouse gases. About 90% of that excess

science.nasa.gov

The CGCMs analyze and project trends, but the warming signal isn’t manufactured; it is directly observed in multiple, independent measurements. Calling this falsification shows a lack of understanding of experimental practice and radiative physics.

 

[westwall]

That’s a misunderstanding of how climate science integrates data. Raw MSU/AMSU radiances, radiosonde temperatures, and surface measurements are direct empirical data, not models. CGCMs are tools for context and projection, not a way to fabricate warming. They help scientists compare multiple datasets consistently and estimate trends under varying scenarios. They don’t create the original measurements.

You can verify this in real publications: the Argo floats, satellite radiances, and ocean heat content measurements exist independently of any model.

Argo program

The Argo program is an international program that uses temperature/salinity profiling float to measure the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean.

www.aoml.noaa.gov

Ocean Warming - Earth Indicator - NASA Science

Water has a high heat capacity, which means it can store a lot of heat. The atmosphere has warmed from increased greenhouse gases. About 90% of that excess

science.nasa.gov

The CGCMs analyze and project trends, but the warming signal isn’t manufactured; it is directly observed in multiple, independent measurements. Calling this falsification shows a lack of understanding of experimental practice and radiative physics.

The problem you have is EVERY computer model your heroes have ever developed ALWAYS indicate warming.

No matter what numbers are plugged into them the result is always warming.

Thus the models are biased, which means they are not usable by actual real scientists.

They are only suitable for propagandists.

 

[Anomalism]

LMFAO!!

How do we measure Pluto's temperature and Mars' temperature?

LOL!!!

You are arguing that distance matters, it doesn't, the readings are the same.

Actually, the late Michael Chrichton proved that Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick chart wasn't about data at all, it was an algorithm that returned a hockey stick chart regardless of the data fed to it.

The “hockey stick” debate around Mann’s early work was about statistical methods for tree-ring proxy reconstruction, not faking temperature data. The underlying paleoclimate data existed independently; the algorithm was just one method of combining and smoothing noisy proxies. Subsequent studies using completely independent proxies, multiple statistical techniques, and updated datasets have reproduced the same long-term trend of recent warming.

In other words, the claim that Mann’s work “returns a hockey stick regardless of input” has been thoroughly debunked: it’s a cherry picked attack, not a refutation of measured or reconstructed temperatures.

The warming trend isn’t a model artifact. It’s supported by multiple independent datasets: satellites, surface instruments, ocean heat content, and proxies.

 

[EMH]

The “hockey stick” debate around Mann’s early work was about statistical methods for tree-ring proxy reconstruction, not faking temperature data. The underlying paleoclimate data existed independently; the algorithm was just one method of combining and smoothing noisy proxies. Subsequent studies using completely independent proxies, multiple statistical techniques, and updated datasets have reproduced the same long-term trend of recent warming.

In other words, the claim that Mann’s work “returns a hockey stick regardless of input” has been thoroughly debunked: it’s a cherry picked attack, not a refutation of measured or reconstructed temperatures.

The warming trend isn’t a model artifact. It’s supported by multiple independent datasets: satellites, surface instruments, ocean heat content, and proxies.

LOL!!!


Your "evidence" of Earth warming...

lying about Urban Heat Island Effect
FUDGE

THAT's IT

NO OCEAN WARMING
NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING
NO OCEAN RISE
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY
NO RISE IN SURFACE AIR PRESSURE

 

[westwall]

The “hockey stick” debate around Mann’s early work was about statistical methods for tree-ring proxy reconstruction, not faking temperature data. The underlying paleoclimate data existed independently; the algorithm was just one method of combining and smoothing noisy proxies. Subsequent studies using completely independent proxies, multiple statistical techniques, and updated datasets have reproduced the same long-term trend of recent warming.

In other words, the claim that Mann’s work “returns a hockey stick regardless of input” has been thoroughly debunked: it’s a cherry picked attack, not a refutation of measured or reconstructed temperatures.

The warming trend isn’t a model artifact. It’s supported by multiple independent datasets: satellites, surface instruments, ocean heat content, and proxies.

It's absolutely about faking temperature data. Mann just lost his last and final court case about that joke of a claim as well.

You are pushing anti science religious zealotry.

 

[EMH]

it is directly observed in multiple, independent measurements

Not those from the actual instruments. They all show NO WARMING.

Then the data gets "corrected" aka FUDGED to show "warming" that does not exist.