Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Anomalism]

Yes, it is just models. That's all. The fraud is now so extensive that climatologists no longer even try to present real evidence.

I understand the basics quite well, you're the one claiming heat can DOWN, into the water column even though there is no way for that heat to even penetrate the skin of the water.

Your claims are based on fantasy, while I am following simple physics.

It's obvious that you are nothing more than a parrot. You have no degree in a scientific specialty, that is clear. You are an expert at tossing out every bit of verbiage that the climate fraudsters have posted on their websites.

But let's cut to the chase, what do you propose to "bring climate under control"?

You’re conflating penetration depth with energy influence again. Heat doesn’t need to magically radiate meters down as IR to affect the water column. Absorption in the top microns sets up a temperature gradient, which drives conduction, convection, and turbulence. Basic fluid dynamics and thermodynamics in action.

This isn’t fantasy; it’s textbook physics, and it’s why Argo floats measure warming hundreds of meters deep even though IR itself doesn’t reach that far.

As for “bringing climate under control,” that’s not a scientific question. It’s policy. I’m not here to dictate what society should do; I focus on the science: what is happening, why it happens, and how energy flows through the Earth system. The rest is up to governments, markets, and people.

 

[westwall]

You’re conflating penetration depth with energy influence again. Heat doesn’t need to magically radiate meters down as IR to affect the water column. Absorption in the top microns sets up a temperature gradient, which drives conduction, convection, and turbulence. Basic fluid dynamics and thermodynamics in action.

This isn’t fantasy; it’s textbook physics, and it’s why Argo floats measure warming hundreds of meters deep even though IR itself doesn’t reach that far.

As for “bringing climate under control,” that’s not a scientific question. It’s policy. I’m not here to dictate what society should do; I focus on the science: what is happening, why it happens, and how energy flows through the Earth system. The rest is up to governments, markets, and people.

No, it doesn't. No energy transmits through the skin of the water. Thus you have to fantasize about some magical convection that somehow transports energy THROUGH the skin.

Do you understand how ridiculous that position is?

You ignore fundamental science laws, and present nonsense.

 

[Anomalism]

In other words, you are admitting to not being able to show even one clear correlation that amply demonstrates the climate problem in any convincing way? Then follow that up with the argument that: "You just have to know how to interpret a million little facts and put it all together, and trust us lady, we know how to do that and you don't?"


And all those data studies from thousands and millions of years ago all show that the Earth was doing the same things long before we came along, is doing it now, and will still be doing it long after we are gone. It shows that carbon is a natural, inescapable consequence of life and living and that you cannot easily do away with one without harming the other, so, like it or lump it, we either dramatically curtail living by getting rid of billions of people, go back to the Stone Age, or continue to work on the problem as technology allows to gradually become a cleaner and greener society naturally.

So, it all really comes down to practical solutions, and all I ever hear from you people is talk, diagrams and panic, but I don't hear you offering any reasonable solutions.

You’re shifting from the science to policy and framing it as if solutions are a prerequisite for acknowledging the reality. Temperature records, ice cores, sediments, and proxies all independently confirm that CO2 and heat are rising faster than natural cycles alone can explain.

That doesn’t mean we’re panicking or just talking; it means we can accurately describe what is happening. Practical solutions are a separate discussion.

You can debate policy, but pretending that the lack of a perfect plan invalidates centuries of measurements and physics is a category error.

 

[gtopa1]

I CARE!! It's been over a hundred here a couple of times of late, but it dropped almost 40F in the last couple of days. THAT MEANS ICE AGE!!!!!

12th of Feb

• Highest​

  36.6 °C

Lowest: Feb 4

Lowest​

15.2 °C

With the wind chill you can subtract another 3C.

It's the WEATHER, stupid!!

Greg


NOW???

 

[westwall]

You’re shifting from the science to policy and framing it as if solutions are a prerequisite for acknowledging the reality. Temperature records, ice cores, sediments, and proxies all independently confirm that CO2 and heat are rising faster than natural cycles alone can explain.

That doesn’t mean we’re panicking or just talking; it means we can accurately describe what is happening. Practical solutions are a separate discussion.

You can debate policy, but pretending that the lack of a perfect plan invalidates centuries of measurements and physics is a category error.

Hey, you're the one who claims to be arguing the science but I just noticed your epistemology thread, guess what, that's RELIGION, not science.

You further weaken your claimed scientific credentials by resorting immediately to an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Which any 1st year student will happily inform you is a first order logic fail.

So you truly have nothing scientific at all to say. You are a religious zealot and nothing more.

 

[Anomalism]

No, it doesn't. No energy transmits through the skin of the water. Thus you have to fantasize about some magical convection that somehow transports energy THROUGH the skin.

Do you understand how ridiculous that position is?

You ignore fundamental science laws, and present nonsense.

You’re simply ignoring well established fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Heat doesn’t need to penetrate deeply as IR to influence the water column. Absorption in the top microns creates a temperature gradient that drives conduction, convection, and turbulence. That’s literally how surface heating works in all fluids.

You’re treating penetration depth as a prerequisite for energy transfer. It’s not. Molecular collisions, buoyancy driven convection, wind driven turbulence, and shear all propagate absorbed energy into deeper layers. This is standard physics, not climate specific speculation. The “magical convection” you dismiss is just ordinary thermodynamics in action, fully measured in real oceans.

You're not just arguing against climate science anymore. You're denying basic thermo and fluid dynamics.

 

[westwall]

You’re shifting from the science to policy and framing it as if solutions are a prerequisite for acknowledging the reality. Temperature records, ice cores, sediments, and proxies all independently confirm that CO2 and heat are rising faster than natural cycles alone can explain.

That doesn’t mean we’re panicking or just talking; it means we can accurately describe what is happening. Practical solutions are a separate discussion.

You can debate policy, but pretending that the lack of a perfect plan invalidates centuries of measurements and physics is a category error.

You’re simply ignoring well established fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Heat doesn’t need to penetrate deeply as IR to influence the water column. Absorption in the top microns creates a temperature gradient that drives conduction, convection, and turbulence. That’s literally how surface heating works in all fluids.

You’re treating penetration depth as a prerequisite for energy transfer. It’s not. Molecular collisions, buoyancy driven convection, wind driven turbulence, and shear all propagate absorbed energy into deeper layers. This is standard physics, not climate specific speculation. The “magical convection” you dismiss is just ordinary thermodynamics in action, fully measured in real oceans.

You're not just arguing against climate science anymore. You're denying basic thermo and fluid dynamics.

No, it's you who are ignoring them sport.

 

[Anomalism]

No, it's you who are ignoring them sport.

The science you're wrong about isn't even climate science. It's basic dynamics. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Lol

 

[gtopa1]

I CARE!! It's been over a hundred here a couple of times of late, but it dropped almost 40F in the last couple of days. THAT MEANS ICE AGE!!!!!

12th of Feb

• Highest​

  36.6 °C

Lowest: Feb 4

Lowest​

15.2 °C

With the wind chill you can subtract another 3C.

It's the WEATHER, stupid!!

Greg


NOW???

PLUS we just got three inches of rain over the last few days.

It's been fantastic actually though a tad humid.

Greg

 

[westwall]

The science you're wrong about isn't even climate science. It's basic dynamics. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Lol

Reading through your epistemology thread, it is quite obvious what you are.

And it isn't good.

 

[Anomalism]

Reading through your epistemology thread, it is quite obvious what you are.

And it isn't good.

You're literally misunderstanding basic science, not just climate science.

 

[gtopa1]

The science you're wrong about isn't even climate science. It's basic dynamics. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Lol

We Told You So: EPA Was Wrong About CO2 From the Start

The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding is a step back toward honesty. It acknowledges that CO2 is not the villain it was made out to be.

wattsupwiththat.com

Greg

 

[Anomalism]

We Told You So: EPA Was Wrong About CO2 From the Start

The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding is a step back toward honesty. It acknowledges that CO2 is not the villain it was made out to be.

wattsupwiththat.com

Greg

Care to articulate what you're getting at with your blog links?

 

[BackAgain]

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


okay then

I believe that’s a concept known as “seasons.”

 

[gtopa1]

You're literally misunderstanding basic science, not just climate science.

Description:

This global temperature record from 1979 shows a modest and unalarming 0.16° Celsius rise per decade (0.28⁰ Fahrenheit rise per decade) that is not accelerating as of 7/1/25.

The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, measures the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band, using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) temperature measurements on the AQUA satellite. This graph displays the Lower Troposphere aka TLT data. The reason for using the lower troposphere instead of the surface as viewed from space is that the temperature data seen by satellites at the surface is inherently too noisy to provide stable data. The altitude of TLT data used is at approximately 14,000 feet (4267.2 meters) which is representative of surface temperature, without the noise associated with weather and human activity, such as Urban Heat Islands (UHI), which skew the near-surface temperature record. A pro and con discussion can be found at the Everything Climate page on UHI.

It was the first global temperature dataset developed from satellite information and has been used as a tool for research into surface and atmospheric temperature changes. The dataset is published by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. A more detailed monthly report can be found here at the UAH Global Temperature Report page.

The entire UAH Global Temperature record relies on combining and calibrating the data from several different NASA satellites over the entire temperature record since 1979. This is because satellites have a limited operational life. In 2022, a group of scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) headed by Cheng-Zhi Zou, published a study with with a new approach to NOAA’s satellite microwave sounder data so that it virtually matched the UAH Global Temperature record, corroborating the UAH analysis. Now Zou’s analysis agrees with the UAH series very closely—in fact it has a slightly smaller warming trend. In addition, this temperature record has been corroborated by the massive temperature data record developed with atmospheric balloon temperature records from around the globe.

The raw data is available here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Care to articulate what you're getting at with your blog links?

Read it and make up your own mind. Or not; dilligaf.

Greg

 

[toobfreak]

It's not just models,

You’re shifting from the science to policy and framing it as if solutions are a prerequisite

Well, yeah, it IS all just models---- soon as you take all of your data collected from all manor of ways and places, you plug all of that stuff into a MODEL to see what it spits out as a forecast! And from what I hear, all of your models tend to all have a one-way bias... they run hot. They collect heat but never want to give it up.

And that bit about solutions--- sorry, that is just my old engineering chops at work, you see, I was never paid soft money just to research stuff hoping something neat or good would hopefully come of it, theory was fine, but I always needed to offer SOLUTIONS.

Without solutions, all of the theory and study in the world is worthless. I'll concede the possibility of mankind's activities being a /modifier/ taking an already dynamic trend or system and perhaps adding to it in some way which might exacerbate the variability of the system,

THE THING IS,

You have to KNOW, because, so far, it isn't that I'm against new technology or greener technology, just that the kinds of solutions I've seen floated out there as a solution so far are simply DRACONIAN (like Joe Biden having all of us driving EVs by 2035 and DOUBLING our electric grid), and draconian solutions demand exact proof--- all I see bantered about are charts, theories, models, and conflicting interpretations.

And isn't that really the problem? As it stands, all I see are a lot of special interests pushing for changes which would redirect a LOT of money through THEIR fingers.

Major, effective change must be gradual change. My weather here has not appreciably changed since the 1960s. I remember growing up in the '70s and the rage then was the coming Ice Age. Then it was global warming. Now it is just Climate Change. Well, Holy Crap! Climate IS change! And you either adapt and deal with it or you get replaced.

If this is a real problem, it needed to be recognized a long time ago then intelligent choices slowly introduced so that the effect of dealing with it was likewise gradual and tolerable. Instead, I can go back and see climate forecasts for the world made back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s which have all come and gone, and every one of them has been wrong.

You are asking people to commit to a fantastic solution to a problem that as of yet, you cannot even consistently nor reliably define.

 

[Anomalism]

Description:

This global temperature record from 1979 shows a modest and unalarming 0.16° Celsius rise per decade (0.28⁰ Fahrenheit rise per decade) that is not accelerating as of 7/1/25.

The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, measures the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band, using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) temperature measurements on the AQUA satellite. This graph displays the Lower Troposphere aka TLT data. The reason for using the lower troposphere instead of the surface as viewed from space is that the temperature data seen by satellites at the surface is inherently too noisy to provide stable data. The altitude of TLT data used is at approximately 14,000 feet (4267.2 meters) which is representative of surface temperature, without the noise associated with weather and human activity, such as Urban Heat Islands (UHI), which skew the near-surface temperature record. A pro and con discussion can be found at the Everything Climate page on UHI.

It was the first global temperature dataset developed from satellite information and has been used as a tool for research into surface and atmospheric temperature changes. The dataset is published by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. A more detailed monthly report can be found here at the UAH Global Temperature Report page.

The entire UAH Global Temperature record relies on combining and calibrating the data from several different NASA satellites over the entire temperature record since 1979. This is because satellites have a limited operational life. In 2022, a group of scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) headed by Cheng-Zhi Zou, published a study with with a new approach to NOAA’s satellite microwave sounder data so that it virtually matched the UAH Global Temperature record, corroborating the UAH analysis. Now Zou’s analysis agrees with the UAH series very closely—in fact it has a slightly smaller warming trend. In addition, this temperature record has been corroborated by the massive temperature data record developed with atmospheric balloon temperature records from around the globe.

The raw data is available here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Greg

What you’ve just posted is a description of the UAH dataset and its methodology, but it doesn’t actually address why relying solely on the lower troposphere from satellites proves that global warming isn’t real or significant. Satellites measure one layer of the atmosphere, not the full climate system, and they need complex calibration to account for orbital decay, sensor drift, and diurnal sampling. Surface temperatures, ocean heat content, ice mass balance, and other independent datasets all show clear warming.

Saying the trend is “modest” in one specific layer doesn’t invalidate decades of multi-source evidence that the Earth is accumulating energy. Your description is accurate as far as it goes, but it’s not a disproof; it’s just a partial snapshot interpreted selectively.

 

[Anomalism]

Well, yeah, it IS all just models---- soon as you take all of your data collected from all manor of ways and places, you plug all of that stuff into a MODEL to see what it spits out as a forecast! And from what I hear, all of your models tend to all have a one-way bias... they run hot. They collect heat but never want to give it up.

And that bit about solutions--- sorry, that is just my old engineering chops at work, you see, I was never paid soft money just to research stuff hoping something neat or good would hopefully come of it, theory was fine, but I always needed to offer SOLUTIONS.

Without solutions, all of the theory and study in the world is worthless. I'll concede the possibility of mankind's activities being a /modifier/ taking an already dynamic trend or system and perhaps adding to it in some way which might exacerbate the variability of the system,

THE THING IS,

You have to KNOW, because, so far, it isn't that I'm against new technology or greener technology, just that the kinds of solutions I've seen floated out there as a solution so far are simply DRACONIAN (like Joe Biden having all of us driving EVs by 2035 and DOUBLING our electric grid), and draconian solutions demand exact proof--- all I see bantered about are charts, theories, models, and conflicting interpretations.

And isn't that really the problem? As it stands, all I see are a lot of special interests pushing for changes which would redirect a LOT of money through THEIR fingers.

Major, effective change must be gradual change. My weather here has not appreciably changed since the 1960s. I remember growing up in the '70s and the rage then was the coming Ice Age. Then it was global warming. Now it is just Climate Change. Well, Holy Crap! Climate IS change! And you either adapt and deal with it or you get replaced.

If this is a real problem, it needed to be recognized a long time ago then intelligent choices slowly introduced so that the effect of dealing with it was likewise gradual and tolerable. Instead, I can go back and see climate forecasts for the world made back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s which have all come and gone, and every one of them has been wrong.

You are asking people to commit to a fantastic solution to a problem that as of yet, you cannot even consistently nor reliably define.

Some of what you’re saying is reasonable from a policy and practical standpoint. Science doesn’t hand out policy solutions. It measures, explains, and predicts. Models aren’t magic; they’re just tools to synthesize enormous amounts of observational data and physics into forecasts.

Models are grounded in thermodynamics, radiative physics, ocean circulation, and decades of data. The fact that past projections didn’t nail every regional outcome doesn’t invalidate the broader patterns they reveal: the Earth is accumulating heat, oceans are warming, ice is melting, and atmospheric CO2 is higher than at any time in millions of years.

Pretending there’s no measurable warming or dismissing the underlying physics because local weather hasn’t changed drastically in your backyard is a category error. The science defines the risk and the rate; the solutions are what society debates on how best to implement.

 

[westwall]

You're literally misunderstanding basic science, not just climate science.

No, skippy...
YOU are ignoring fundamental scientific laws to push your political goals.