Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[SaxonJackson]

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.

In other words ... business as usual. Weather being weather.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

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.

All of the datasets I’ve mentioned exist independently of any model. Satellites measure outgoing infrared radiation directly; Argo floats measure ocean temperatures directly; radiosondes measure vertical temperature profiles directly; tree-ring, ice core, and sediment proxies record past climate directly. Climate models are tools for integrating and projecting these measurements, not sources of the raw data themselves. The warming trend shows up in each of these independent datasets, which is why multiple agencies and research groups converge on the same conclusion.

The Mann hockey stick controversy was about statistical reconstruction methods, not about inventing data. The underlying proxy data were real and reproducible. Subsequent studies using completely different methods and datasets produce nearly identical trends. Saying “it’s all faked” ignores the independent, measurable evidence from instruments and proxies alike. This isn’t zealotry; it’s physics and empirical measurement.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

Even before any modeling, each independent dataset converges on the same trend: the troposphere is warming, the oceans are gaining heat, and outgoing infrared at CO2 absorption bands is decreasing. These are direct, observable measurements, not guesses, not models. Calling corrections fraud is misunderstanding how real world physics experiments work.

 

[EMH]

Even before any modeling, each independent dataset converges on the same trend: the troposphere is warming, the oceans are gaining heat, and outgoing infrared at CO2 absorption bands is decreasing. These are direct, observable measurements, not guesses, not models. Calling corrections fraud is misunderstanding how real world physics experiments work.

LOL!!

The DIRECT OBSERVABLE MEASUREMENTS are

no warming in the atmosphere - satellites, balloons, surface air pressure
no warming in the oceans = no breakout in cane activity
no ongoing net ice melt = no ocean rise and no rise in surface air pressure


Face it, you aren't interested in climate truth, you are interested in pushing CO2 FRAUD bullshit and spazzing when it gets completely refuted.

 

[Anomalism]

LOL!!

The DIRECT OBSERVABLE MEASUREMENTS are

no warming in the atmosphere - satellites, balloons, surface air pressure
no warming in the oceans = no breakout in cane activity
no ongoing net ice melt = no ocean rise and no rise in surface air pressure


Face it, you aren't interested in climate truth, you are interested in pushing CO2 FRAUD bullshit and spazzing when it gets completely refuted.

At this point you're not arguing about climate anymore. You're arguing that the entire global measurement infrastructure is fake, but hurricanes and surface pressure are somehow the only honest instruments left on Earth.

Lol

 

[EMH]

At this point you're not arguing about climate anymore. You're arguing that the entire global measurement infrastructure is fake, but hurricanes and surface pressure are somehow the only honest instruments left on Earth.

Lol

... because CO2 FRAUD cannot.... fudge number of canes.... or surface air pressure.

Everything they can fudge, they do, and have since CO2 FRAUD began.


Co2 FRAUD is fudging the strength of the canes, the cane that hit Jamaica did Cat 1 damage, classified as a Cat 5.... bullshit fudge job.

 

[Anomalism]

... because CO2 FRAUD cannot.... fudge number of canes.... or surface air pressure.

Everything they can fudge, they do, and have since CO2 FRAUD began.


Co2 FRAUD is fudging the strength of the canes, the cane that hit Jamaica did Cat 1 damage, classified as a Cat 5.... bullshit fudge job.

Your position isn’t climate skepticism, it’s a full conspiracy epistemology. You’re saying every global measurement system is fake. Satellites, buoys, Argo floats, tide gauges, radiosondes, thermometers, reanalyses, all coordinated worldwide for decades, but hurricanes and surface pressure are somehow the only honest data left on Earth.

What makes it logically broken is that hurricanes, pressure, wind speeds, and storm intensity are measured by the same infrastructure you claim is fraudulent: satellites, aircraft, radar, and surface instruments. You declared the entire measurement ecosystem fake and then cherry picked two outputs from it as immune to fraud.

 

[EMH]

You’re saying every global measurement system is fake

CO2 FRAUD has known all along it was just lying about Urban Heat Island Effect. Algore apparently claimed that humans, just living, cooking, driving cars, heating homes etc. were going to produce "warming." So it was a license to lie about why.

In reality, just the surface of growing urban areas on Earth has warmed, nothing else has.

EVERY TIME CO2 FRAUD GETS DATA SHOWING NO WARMING, IT FUDGES IT, SPECIFICALLY

OCEANS
ATMOSPHERE

BUT IT CAN'T FUDGE things like CANES and SURFACE AIR PRESSURE, so sorry...

 

[HikerGuy83]

The scientific study of the climate. Lol

So what would they be arguing against? (Post #5)

 

[Anomalism]

CO2 FRAUD has known all along it was just lying about Urban Heat Island Effect. Algore apparently claimed that humans, just living, cooking, driving cars, heating homes etc. were going to produce "warming." So it was a license to lie about why.

In reality, just the surface of growing urban areas on Earth has warmed, nothing else has.

EVERY TIME CO2 FRAUD GETS DATA SHOWING NO WARMING, IT FUDGES IT, SPECIFICALLY

OCEANS
ATMOSPHERE

BUT IT CAN'T FUDGE things like CANES and SURFACE AIR PRESSURE, so sorry...

Claiming all global measurements are fake except hurricanes and surface pressure is nonsense. Oceans and the atmosphere are directly measured with independent instruments, not opinions. Urban Heat Island effects are accounted for in global analyses. Hurricanes and surface pressure are short-term, chaotic phenomena and can’t override decades of converging, direct observations showing the troposphere and oceans are warming.

 

[EMH]

Over and over, she lies, I refute...

Oceans and the atmosphere are directly measured with independent instruments, not opinions

really, the DIRECT MEASUREMENTS BY THE INSTRUMENTS showed...

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.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data"


and it wasn't an "opinion" that the data needed to be FUDGED, never mind the satellite and balloon ACTUAL DATA showed NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion for more than 3 decades of rising CO2.....


This poster is basically saying...


believe the fudge, ignore your eyes and the actual data from the actual instruments.

 

[Anomalism]

So what would they be arguing against? (Post #5)

What's up with your pedantic approach? Do you want to have a discussion or not?

 

[Anomalism]

Over and over, she lies, I refute...






really, the DIRECT MEASUREMENTS BY THE INSTRUMENTS showed...

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.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data"


and it wasn't an "opinion" that the data needed to be FUDGED, never mind the satellite and balloon ACTUAL DATA showed NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion for more than 3 decades of rising CO2.....


This poster is basically saying...


believe the fudge, ignore your eyes and the actual data from the actual instruments.

What you’re describing is exactly backward. The corrections weren’t about inventing warming; they were about fixing known, measurable instrumental issues so the instruments accurately reflected reality. The raw radiances weren’t lying; they just required calibration to match physical reality, which is standard in any branch of experimental physics.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What's up with your pedantic approach? Do you want to have a discussion or not?

Most discussions go nowhere because there isn't clarity on what is being discussed.

I should be asking you the same question.

If I ask what exactly it is you are arguing against or for, do I get an answer in terms of:

1. Here is the detected increase (assuming we are talking increases) in some temperature somewhere (or a macro number).
2. Here is the expected natural rise (if there is one).
3. Therefore you have a difference of some delta.
4. And this is caused by.......
5. I can't say that I've ever seen the data presented that way.

What I have seen is:

1. Here is the detected increase (based on....) and that is argued (they lied.....the data is not normalized....a host of other....but whatever. Here is the increase.
2. It's all man's fault.
3. None of it is mans fault because there are natural cycles.

Etc etc etc.

 

[Anomalism]

Most discussions go nowhere because there isn't clarity on what is being discussed.

I should be asking you the same question.

If I ask what exactly it is you are arguing against or for, do I get an answer in terms of:

1. Here is the detected increase (assuming we are talking increases) in some temperature somewhere (or a macro number).
2. Here is the expected natural rise (if there is one).
3. Therefore you have a difference of some delta.
4. And this is caused by.......
5. I can't say that I've ever seen the data presented that way.

What I have seen is:

1. Here is the detected increase (based on....) and that is argued (they lied.....the data is not normalized....a host of other....but whatever. Here is the increase.
2. It's all man's fault.
3. None of it is mans fault because there are natural cycles.

Etc etc etc.

Science doesn’t argue in slogans, it quantifies. Observed increase: Tropospheric temperature has risen roughly 0.8-1.0C since the late 19th century. Ocean heat content has increased by ~3×10²³ J over the same period, measured directly by Argo floats, ship profiles, and satellite radiometry.

Expected natural variability: Paleoclimate reconstructions and internal climate variability suggest multi-decadal fluctuations of +0.2-0.3C without anthropogenic influence.

Difference: Observed warming exceeds expected natural variability by a clear margin in both the atmosphere and oceans.

Attribution: Multiple independent lines show that the excess is almost entirely due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

This is exactly how the IPCC and peer-reviewed literature present data. Trends, error bars, attribution studies, and cross validation between independent datasets. The idea that it’s “just man’s fault vs natural cycles” is a strawman; the work explicitly quantifies natural variability and isolates anthropogenic forcing.

This is what real science looks like, measured, cross checked, and attributed.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Science doesn’t argue in slogans, it quantifies.

That would be completely true if humans were not involved.

The AC vs DC current argument is a clear example (to me).

And thank you for the rest. It's a great place to start.

Now, I'll wait to see if anyone can argue that hasn't happened or if they think they can explain it in other ways that are very clear.

 

[Anomalism]

Now, I'll wait to see if anyone can argue that hasn't happened or if they think they can explain it in other ways that are very clear.

Don't hold your breath. Lol

 

[westwall]

All of the datasets I’ve mentioned exist independently of any model. Satellites measure outgoing infrared radiation directly; Argo floats measure ocean temperatures directly; radiosondes measure vertical temperature profiles directly; tree-ring, ice core, and sediment proxies record past climate directly. Climate models are tools for integrating and projecting these measurements, not sources of the raw data themselves. The warming trend shows up in each of these independent datasets, which is why multiple agencies and research groups converge on the same conclusion.

The Mann hockey stick controversy was about statistical reconstruction methods, not about inventing data. The underlying proxy data were real and reproducible. Subsequent studies using completely different methods and datasets produce nearly identical trends. Saying “it’s all faked” ignores the independent, measurable evidence from instruments and proxies alike. This isn’t zealotry; it’s physics and empirical measurement.

No, they don't. The datasets you rely on are all falsified. Every single one of them.

Thus you are relying on pure nonsense to make your claims. CLIMATEGATE proved the falsification that was happening, and your heroes doubled down on their fraud.

 

[Anomalism]

No, they don't. The datasets you rely on are all falsified. Every single one of them.

Thus you are relying on pure nonsense to make your claims. CLIMATEGATE proved the falsification that was happening, and your heroes doubled down on their fraud.

That’s a conspiracy claim, not a refutation. Each of the datasets I mentioned exists independently. Satellites measure outgoing infrared radiation, Argo floats measure ocean temperatures, radiosondes measure vertical temperature profiles, and tree ring or ice core proxies record past climate. These are direct physical measurements, not computer simulations. “Climategate” emails were cherry picked, taken out of context, and multiple independent investigations found no evidence of data fabrication; the actual measurements and proxy records remain intact and reproducible. Saying they’re all falsified ignores the independent, verifiable evidence from multiple instruments and research groups worldwide.

 

[westwall]

That’s a conspiracy claim, not a refutation. Each of the datasets I mentioned exists independently. Satellites measure outgoing infrared radiation, Argo floats measure ocean temperatures, radiosondes measure vertical temperature profiles, and tree ring or ice core proxies record past climate. These are direct physical measurements, not computer simulations. “Climategate” emails were cherry picked, taken out of context, and multiple independent investigations found no evidence of data fabrication; the actual measurements and proxy records remain intact and reproducible. Saying they’re all falsified ignores the independent, verifiable evidence from multiple instruments and research groups worldwide.

It's not conspiracy, it is a very, very inconvenient fact that you religious zealots have desperately tried to ignore since the emails were first released.