Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Anomalism]

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.

Independent measurements don’t care about cherry picked emails or how politically inconvenient the findings are. Satellites, Argo floats, radiosondes, and proxies all record actual physical phenomena, not opinions. Multiple research groups, across different continents and methods, converge on the same warming trends.

 

[westwall]

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.

No, that is what CLIMATE SCIENCE looks like. Real science follows the scientific method.

Climatologists are the first "scientists" I have ever heard claim they are exempt from the scientific method.

 

[westwall]

Independent measurements don’t care about cherry picked emails or how politically inconvenient the findings are. Satellites, Argo floats, radiosondes, and proxies all record actual physical phenomena, not opinions. Multiple research groups, across different continents and methods, converge on the same warming trends.

Present independent measurements that are not based on computer models.

Present a link to one.

 

[Anomalism]

Present independent measurements that are not based on computer models.

Present a link to one.

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

Ocean Heat Content, Salt Content, and Sea Level Anomalies

This product is a collection of time series and anomalies for several ocean climate variables that are critical to understanding the Earth’s radiation budget, sea level, global freshwater budget, ocean subsurface temperature, and salinity. The heat and salt content component of this product form...

www.ncei.noaa.gov

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

 

[westwall]

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

Ocean Heat Content, Salt Content, and Sea Level Anomalies

This product is a collection of time series and anomalies for several ocean climate variables that are critical to understanding the Earth’s radiation budget, sea level, global freshwater budget, ocean subsurface temperature, and salinity. The heat and salt content component of this product form...

www.ncei.noaa.gov

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

Do you understand that those are not what I asked for? Those are OPINION pieces, they reference nothing that I asked for.

You claimed to have some experience in scientific arguments yet I see no evidence to support your claim.

Try again.

 

[Anomalism]

Do you understand that those are not what I asked for? Those are OPINION pieces, they reference nothing that I asked for.

You claimed to have some experience in scientific arguments yet I see no evidence to support your claim.

Try again.

This is raw profile data collected directly by autonomous floats that dive up and down, sending back temperature and salinity. It’s not a model, it’s instrument output.

Dataset Overview | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

www.ncei.noaa.gov

---

This is the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 record, the longest continuous measurement of atmospheric CO2 on the planet.

Loading…

scrippsco2.ucsd.edu

You can download weekly, monthly, and daily measured CO2 concentrations going back to 1958. This is raw observational data, not a model.

---

Here’s the direct FTP dataset where scientists publish the measured CO2 values in plain text. Raw observational output.

CO2 Mauna Loa (NOAA) dataset — meteo_noaa_co2

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) monthly measurements from Mauna Loa observatory. The source file is available at: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt with all further details.

bczernecki.github.io

Any exactly measured value, year, month, ppm, is in this text file. That is not generated by a climate model; it’s instrument readings from the observatory.

---

This NOAA/RealClimate catalog points to raw station records, satellite feeds, tide gauges, Argo, and ice core data. All primary datasets:

RealClimate: Data Sources

RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed. Climate data (raw) Climate data (processed)...

www.realclimate.org

This is not a narrative page; it’s a catalog of raw datasets where you can go see the actual numbers yourself.

 

[westwall]

This is raw profile data collected directly by autonomous floats that dive up and down, sending back temperature and salinity. It’s not a model, it’s instrument output.

Dataset Overview | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

www.ncei.noaa.gov

---

This is the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 record, the longest continuous measurement of atmospheric CO2 on the planet.

Loading…

scrippsco2.ucsd.edu

You can download weekly, monthly, and daily measured CO2 concentrations going back to 1958. This is raw observational data, not a model.

---

Here’s the direct FTP dataset where scientists publish the measured CO2 values in plain text. Raw observational output.

CO2 Mauna Loa (NOAA) dataset — meteo_noaa_co2

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) monthly measurements from Mauna Loa observatory. The source file is available at: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt with all further details.

bczernecki.github.io

Any exactly measured value, year, month, ppm, is in this text file. That is not generated by a climate model; it’s instrument readings from the observatory.

---

This NOAA/RealClimate catalog points to raw station records, satellite feeds, tide gauges, Argo, and ice core data. All primary datasets:

RealClimate: Data Sources

RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed. Climate data (raw) Climate data (processed)...

www.realclimate.org

This is not a narrative page; it’s a catalog of raw datasets where you can go see the actual numbers yourself.

And? CO2 measurements tell you nothing of importance.

Once again, do you understand the very simple ask I made of you?

It's absolutely clear you have no idea how scientific arguments are made. You were supposed to be some sort of firebreathing truth teller, but you're showing you are nothing but a clown.

 

[Anomalism]

And? CO2 measurements tell you nothing of importance.

Once again, do you understand the very simple ask I made of you?

It's absolutely clear you have no idea how scientific arguments are made. You were supposed to be some sort of firebreathing truth teller, but you're showing you are nothing but a clown.

I do understand your ask. You wanted direct, instrument based, observational datasets that are independent of models. That’s exactly what I provided. Mauna Loa CO2 readings are raw measurements from an observatory; Argo floats collect temperature and salinity directly from the oceans; NOAA catalogs list primary station data, satellite feeds, and ice core proxies. Each one is actual instrument output, not modeled or simulated.

If your objection is that CO2 measurements tell you nothing, that’s not a critique of the datasets. It’s an opinion about relevance. The point isn’t the CO2 number itself; it’s that we can measure atmospheric CO2, surface and ocean temperatures, and ice mass directly, and these instruments independently confirm warming trends. That satisfies your stated requirement. Raw, independent, observable science, no models involved.

If you want to challenge the science, you need to address the measurements themselves, not dismiss them because they contradict your prior assumption or because you disagree with what the data implies.

I gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you will dodge and attempt to move the goal posts.

 

[westwall]

I do understand your ask. You wanted direct, instrument based, observational datasets that are independent of models. That’s exactly what I provided. Mauna Loa CO2 readings are raw measurements from an observatory; Argo floats collect temperature and salinity directly from the oceans; NOAA catalogs list primary station data, satellite feeds, and ice core proxies. Each one is actual instrument output, not modeled or simulated.

If your objection is that CO2 measurements tell you nothing, that’s not a critique of the datasets. It’s an opinion about relevance. The point isn’t the CO2 number itself; it’s that we can measure atmospheric CO2, surface and ocean temperatures, and ice mass directly, and these instruments independently confirm warming trends. That satisfies your stated requirement. Raw, independent, observable science, no models involved.

If you want to challenge the science, you need to address the measurements themselves, not dismiss them because they contradict your prior assumption or because you disagree with what the data implies.

I gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you will dodge and attempt to move the goal posts.

A measurement of CO2 levels isn't relevant. It's the left hand waving " look over here" while the right hand is stacking the playing cards.

You first have to PROVE that CO2 levels are meaningful. They aren't, the Vostock ice core data has already established that, but you have to make a direct, substantiated link between CO2 levels and global temperatures to make CO2 levels relevant.

Try again.

 

[Anomalism]

A measurement of CO2 levels isn't relevant. It's the left hand waving " look over here" while the right hand is stacking the playing cards.

You first have to PROVE that CO2 levels are meaningful. They aren't, the Vostock ice core data has already established that, but you have to make a direct, substantiated link between CO2 levels and global temperatures to make CO2 levels relevant.

Try again.

CO2 isn’t just a random number. It has a direct, physically measured effect on the climate through its radiative properties. Laboratory spectroscopy shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at well defined wavelengths, particularly around 15 µm, trapping outgoing longwave radiation. This absorption has been confirmed in the atmosphere with satellite observations of the Earth’s infrared spectrum. Independent datasets show the corresponding warming patterns in the oceans, troposphere, and surface. Ice core records from Vostok and Antarctica demonstrate the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. Linking these together isn’t a hand wave; it’s a chain of empirically measured cause and effect: increasing CO2 traps more heat, energy accumulates, and temperatures rise. The relevance of CO2 comes from this physically observed mechanism plus the matching trends in temperature datasets worldwide.

 

[westwall]

CO2 isn’t just a random number. It has a direct, physically measured effect on the climate through its radiative properties. Laboratory spectroscopy shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at well defined wavelengths, particularly around 15 µm, trapping outgoing longwave radiation. This absorption has been confirmed in the atmosphere with satellite observations of the Earth’s infrared spectrum. Independent datasets show the corresponding warming patterns in the oceans, troposphere, and surface. Ice core records from Vostok and Antarctica demonstrate the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. Linking these together isn’t a hand wave; it’s a chain of empirically measured cause and effect: increasing CO2 traps more heat, energy accumulates, and temperatures rise. The relevance of CO2 comes from this physically observed mechanism plus the matching trends in temperature datasets worldwide.

No, it doesn't. That's the point. What does the Vostock ice core data show us?

This isn't a trick question.

 

[Anomalism]

No, it doesn't. That's the point. What does the Vostock ice core data show us?

This isn't a trick question.

The Vostok ice core shows that over the last ~400,000 years, CO2 and temperature rise and fall together in tight lockstep across multiple glacial cycles.

Temperature begins rising first by a few hundred years during deglaciations due to orbital forcing, but then CO2 rises and strongly amplifies the warming through the greenhouse effect. That confirms that CO2 acts as a powerful feedback and global amplifier of temperature change.

The physics doesn’t depend on what caused CO2 to rise; once it’s in the atmosphere, it traps infrared radiation. In the past, temperature nudged CO2 first; today humans are injecting CO2 directly, but the same amplification mechanism applies.

Vostok demonstrates that CO2 is not a bystander, it’s one of the main control knobs of Earth’s climate.

 

[westwall]

The Vostok ice core shows that over the last ~400,000 years, CO2 and temperature rise and fall together in tight lockstep across multiple glacial cycles.

Temperature begins rising first by a few hundred years during deglaciations due to orbital forcing, but then CO2 rises and strongly amplifies the warming through the greenhouse effect. That confirms that CO2 acts as a powerful feedback and global amplifier of temperature change.

The physics doesn’t depend on what caused CO2 to rise; once it’s in the atmosphere, it traps infrared radiation. In the past, temperature nudged CO2 first; today humans are injecting CO2 directly, but the same amplification mechanism applies.

Vostok demonstrates that CO2 is not a bystander, it’s one of the main control knobs of Earth’s climate.

That is an outright lie. The Vostock ice core data shows the exact OPPOSITE.

That data shows CO2 LAGGING global temperature increases by 500 to 800 YEARS.

So, did you know that your statement is a lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?

 

[Old Rocks]

You are about a stupid ass. If your house is in the path of those fires, you definitely care. But, like most MAGAts, you think that kind of thing only happens to other people.

 

[Anomalism]

That is an outright lie. The Vostock ice core data shows the exact OPPOSITE.

That data shows CO2 LAGGING global temperature increases by 500 to 800 YEARS.

So, did you know that your statement is a lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?

The Vostok lag does not refute CO2 forcing; it confirms it. Yes, CO2 lags temperature by ~500-800 years at the start of deglaciations because the initial trigger was orbital (Milankovitch cycles).

That small warming caused the oceans to outgas CO2. But once CO2 rose, it amplified and sustained the warming globally, which is why temperature and CO2 remain tightly locked for tens of thousands of years and why the total warming is far larger than orbital forcing alone can explain.

Orbital cycles start the change, CO2 multiplies it. Today humans are injecting CO2 directly, so we’re skipping the orbital trigger and going straight to the amplifier. The lag doesn’t disprove greenhouse physics. It’s one of the strongest empirical demonstrations that CO2 is a powerful climate control knob.

This conversation is an even better demonstration of how little you actually understand this topic.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that caused warming during past climate changes, notably as a feedback amplifying other factors - Science Feedback

Because of the physics of the transfer of electromagnetic radiation, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, meaning that temperatures must increase as the concentration of CO2 increases. This is true whether natural factors initiate warming (as in many past climate changes) and the release of CO2, or the...

science.feedback.org

RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? Quelle information sur le réchauffement climatique nous apportent les études qui concluent à un retard du CO2 sur la température, réalisées à partir d

RealClimate: This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during...

www.realclimate.org

How Do Ice Cores Show Climate Change? – The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

iere.org

 

[Old Rocks]

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

If only you MAGAts had a brain, you could give a logical answer instead of your normal nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is an outright lie. The Vostock ice core data shows the exact OPPOSITE.

That data shows CO2 LAGGING global temperature increases by 500 to 800 YEARS.

So, did you know that your statement is a lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?

LOL As the Milankovitch Cycles increase the amount of sunlight the southern hemisphere gets, the warming begins. As that warming begins, CO2 is emitted from the sea and land. Which creates a feedback mechanism that creates more warming, and more outgassing of CO2 and CH4. But dumbfuck shills for the denialists have to deny this as it contradicts their lies concerning the dangers of greatly increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If only you MAGAts had a brain, you could give a logical answer instead of your normal nonsense.

More windmills wouldn't have prevented that? I'm shocked!

 

[sparky]

You folks do realize we cycle through this climate bullsh*t here annually right? ~S~

 

[Old Rocks]

Present independent measurements that are not based on computer models.

Present a link to one.