The great global warming fraud

[Robert W]

Laughable. Your "global mean temperature" for 90% of the past million years is ONE ICE CORE FROM AA.





because SAP is PLANETARY. The T in the equation is the GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE. There is no better way to get GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE...

because both or either would push SAP higher, and do on Mars.


Your side has ZERO to refute that.







No. The EVIDENCE is as follows.

1. all forms of air pressure are correlated with temperature, a planet's surface air pressure is no different
2. the clear truth from Mars, that as Mars GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE rises, Mars SAP rises with shockingly high correlation
3. the clear truth that Earth, which has a much more circular orbit but is slightly elliptical, has a 1-2% "bump up" of SAP when CLOSEST TO SUN in January
4. that Earth SAP has been defined as a "standard" down to FIVE DIGITS for decades if not centuries
5. that for the past 60+ years Earth SAP is flat to down


all of that proves...


1. no additional mass is being added to atmosphere, proving NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT, which would add mass to atmosphere
2. no warming


What do you have?

ZZZZZZzzzzz...

That diatribe is where you eff up so much. Mars is not being discussed. Talk to him why saying an average temperature for Earth is stupid. Who the hell wants or needs to average the Tropics to at one pole, the North Pole vs the South Pole that has gained ice?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It means at sea level there is a 6 digit standard SAP compiled for decades by averaging SAP readings, including those affected by local weather noise.

So, yes, Surface Air Pressure is the same at sea level everywhere, affected by noise local weather that doesn't change the average.

It means at sea level there is a 6 digit standard SAP compiled for decades by averaging SAP readings,

Oh, it's an average.

SAP is PLANETARY. You really only need one sea level reading because of that. It is the same at sea level everywhere on Earth...

^^^
And this claim was a lie. Thanks!

 

[EMH]

Mars is not being discussed.

Mars is a planet with an atmosphere that outs CO2 FRAUD as FRAUD, and that's why you hate it.

 

[EMH]

And this claim was a lie

LOL!!!

Where does the 6 digit standard surface air pressure number come from?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because of altitude, duh...

All you can do is talk about local weather. You know you lost again...

Right.

Local conditions can change boiling points.

Local conditions can change air pressure.

That aren't the same.

Good boy!!!!

 

[Robert W]

Mars is a planet with an atmosphere that outs CO2 FRAUD as FRAUD, and that's why you hate it.

The topic not Mars. I wish you discussed science. That poster you argue with will dice and slice you if you talk about two things. Air pressure and Mars. Even your diatribes about ice at the north does not help you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!!!

Where does the 6 digit standard surface air pressure number come from?

I'm not talking about average temperature or average boiling point or average air pressure.

Why are you?

 

[Robert W]

Right.

Local conditions can change boiling points.

Local conditions can change air pressure.

That aren't the same.

Good boy!!!!

He is all over the place when he discusses global climate. He thinks discussing Mars helps him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He is all over the place when he discusses global climate. He thinks discussing Mars helps him.

He's a loon.

He could prove his claims, but he said the Jews hid the evidence in 2010.

 

[Robert W]

He's a loon.

He could prove his claims, but he said the Jews hid the evidence in 2010.

Oh my god. He is only 41 but old enough to be willing to learn facts. He is a conspiracy theory follower.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh my god. He is only 41 but old enough to be willing to learn facts. He is a conspiracy theory follower.

He's closer to 100 than 41.

 

[Rumpole]

Laughable. Your "global mean temperature" for 90% of the past million years is ONE ICE CORE FROM AA.





because SAP is PLANETARY. The T in the equation is the GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE. There is no better way to get GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE...

because both or either would push SAP higher, and do on Mars.


Your side has ZERO to refute that.







No. The EVIDENCE is as follows.

1. all forms of air pressure are correlated with temperature, a planet's surface air pressure is no different
2. the clear truth from Mars, that as Mars GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE rises, Mars SAP rises with shockingly high correlation
3. the clear truth that Earth, which has a much more circular orbit but is slightly elliptical, has a 1-2% "bump up" of SAP when CLOSEST TO SUN in January
4. that Earth SAP has been defined as a "standard" down to FIVE DIGITS for decades if not centuries
5. that for the past 60+ years Earth SAP is flat to down


all of that proves...


1. no additional mass is being added to atmosphere, proving NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT, which would add mass to atmosphere
2. no warming


What do you have?

ZZZZZZzzzzz...

Let's go through your five points one at a time, because this is where your argument actually collapses.

Point 1--"All forms of air pressure correlate with temperature." Locally, yes. That's weather. A warm air mass expands and creates low pressure. A cold air mass contracts and creates high pressure. This is why meteorologists use barometric pressure to forecast storms. But you're making a planetary claim--that global mean SAP functions as a reliable proxy for global mean temperature over decadal timescales. That requires a completely different physical mechanism, and you haven't identified one. Correlation in weather systems does not establish SAP as a century-scale global thermometer.

Point 2--Mars. Mars is doing a lot of work in your argument and it can't carry the load. Mars has no oceans, no hydrological cycle, no biosphere, and an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO₂ at about 1% of Earth's atmospheric density. Its SAP variations are driven primarily by CO₂ sublimation and deposition at the poles--the atmosphere literally freezes and thaws seasonally. You're asking a Mars analogy to transfer to a planet with dynamic oceans, complex land-sea pressure gradients, a water vapor feedback system, and an atmosphere 100 times denser. That's not a parallel. That's a completely different physical system.

Point 3--Earth's January SAP bump. You're describing a well-understood orbital mechanics effect--Earth is slightly closer to the Sun in January, receives marginally more solar radiation, and SAP ticks up fractionally. This actually hurts your argument. It demonstrates that SAP responds to solar forcing on short timescales. Decades of greenhouse forcing should show a signal too--unless you're prepared to explain why one forcing registers and the other doesn't. You haven't done that.

Point 4--That formula you posted--the barometric equation. T appears in the denominator governing how pressure varies with altitude. A warming atmosphere expands vertically and redistributes pressure upward. Surface pressure can stay flat or decline even as the atmosphere warms. You handed me a formula that is compatible with AGW and called it a refutation. It isn't. It's confirmation that your own cited physics doesn't support your conclusion. Precise measurement of a stable quantity does not make that quantity a global temperature proxy. A ruler measures length with extraordinary precision. That doesn't mean stable ruler readings tell you the temperature of the room.

Point 5--Earth SAP flat to down for 60+ years. This is your core claim and here's where it breaks entirely. You're asserting that flat SAP proves no atmospheric mass increase--therefore no net ice melt. But you've already conceded the mechanism yourself without realizing it: ice melt adds water to the ocean, not mass to the atmosphere. Sea ice melt is volume displacement--it was already floating. Land ice melt runs into the ocean. Neither pathway adds meaningful mass to the atmosphere. Flat SAP is therefore completely compatible with ongoing land ice melt and sea level rise. Your own logic refutes your own conclusion.

And here's what you still haven't touched: satellite tropospheric temperature measurements, ocean heat content to 2,000 meter depth, three decades of radar altimetry showing sea level rise, GRACE gravitational satellites directly measuring ice mass loss, and radiative forcing measurements confirming CO₂'s heat-trapping mechanism in the actual atmosphere. Eight independent measurement streams from competing institutions in different countries with different funding and different methodologies--all pointing the same direction.

You called my global mean temperature record laughable because it relies on ice cores. But your global mean temperature record is one metric--SAP--interpreted through a Mars analogy, a January orbital blip, and a barometric equation that actively undermines your conclusion. That's your evidentiary foundation.

Where is the peer-reviewed paper establishing SAP as a reliable decadal global temperature proxy on a planet with oceans?

Still waiting.

 

[Rumpole]

is correct as long as all else stays the same, specifically the mass of the atmosphere.

One sentence. That's all it took for you to concede the entire argument.

"As long as all else stays the same."

That's the ballgame. Right there. You just admitted your SAP argument only holds under a condition -- constant atmospheric mass -- that you haven't demonstrated is met, and that the actual physics of a warming planet gives you no reason to assume.

All else has not stayed the same. Here's a partial list of what's changed:

Atmospheric CO₂ has risen from 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 420 ppm today. Water vapor -- the atmosphere's most abundant greenhouse gas -- has increased as the atmosphere warms and holds more moisture. The thermal profile of the atmosphere has shifted, with the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling, exactly as greenhouse forcing predicts. Ocean heat content has risen dramatically, altering the energy exchange between ocean and atmosphere.

Every one of those changes affects atmospheric dynamics. Every one of them is "all else." And you just told me your entire framework assumes none of that happened.

You didn't defend your argument. You quietly buried it in a subordinate clause and hoped nobody noticed.

The peer-reviewed paper. Still waiting.

 

[Robert W]

Let's go through your five points one at a time, because this is where your argument actually collapses.

Point 1--"All forms of air pressure correlate with temperature." Locally, yes. That's weather. A warm air mass expands and creates low pressure. A cold air mass contracts and creates high pressure. This is why meteorologists use barometric pressure to forecast storms. But you're making a planetary claim--that global mean SAP functions as a reliable proxy for global mean temperature over decadal timescales. That requires a completely different physical mechanism, and you haven't identified one. Correlation in weather systems does not establish SAP as a century-scale global thermometer.

Point 2--Mars. Mars is doing a lot of work in your argument and it can't carry the load. Mars has no oceans, no hydrological cycle, no biosphere, and an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO₂ at about 1% of Earth's atmospheric density. Its SAP variations are driven primarily by CO₂ sublimation and deposition at the poles--the atmosphere literally freezes and thaws seasonally. You're asking a Mars analogy to transfer to a planet with dynamic oceans, complex land-sea pressure gradients, a water vapor feedback system, and an atmosphere 100 times denser. That's not a parallel. That's a completely different physical system.

Point 3--Earth's January SAP bump. You're describing a well-understood orbital mechanics effect--Earth is slightly closer to the Sun in January, receives marginally more solar radiation, and SAP ticks up fractionally. This actually hurts your argument. It demonstrates that SAP responds to solar forcing on short timescales. Decades of greenhouse forcing should show a signal too--unless you're prepared to explain why one forcing registers and the other doesn't. You haven't done that.

Point 4--That formula you posted--the barometric equation. T appears in the denominator governing how pressure varies with altitude. A warming atmosphere expands vertically and redistributes pressure upward. Surface pressure can stay flat or decline even as the atmosphere warms. You handed me a formula that is compatible with AGW and called it a refutation. It isn't. It's confirmation that your own cited physics doesn't support your conclusion. Precise measurement of a stable quantity does not make that quantity a global temperature proxy. A ruler measures length with extraordinary precision. That doesn't mean stable ruler readings tell you the temperature of the room.

Point 5--Earth SAP flat to down for 60+ years. This is your core claim and here's where it breaks entirely. You're asserting that flat SAP proves no atmospheric mass increase--therefore no net ice melt. But you've already conceded the mechanism yourself without realizing it: ice melt adds water to the ocean, not mass to the atmosphere. Sea ice melt is volume displacement--it was already floating. Land ice melt runs into the ocean. Neither pathway adds meaningful mass to the atmosphere. Flat SAP is therefore completely compatible with ongoing land ice melt and sea level rise. Your own logic refutes your own conclusion.

And here's what you still haven't touched: satellite tropospheric temperature measurements, ocean heat content to 2,000 meter depth, three decades of radar altimetry showing sea level rise, GRACE gravitational satellites directly measuring ice mass loss, and radiative forcing measurements confirming CO₂'s heat-trapping mechanism in the actual atmosphere. Eight independent measurement streams from competing institutions in different countries with different funding and different methodologies--all pointing the same direction.

You called my global mean temperature record laughable because it relies on ice cores. But your global mean temperature record is one metric--SAP--interpreted through a Mars analogy, a January orbital blip, and a barometric equation that actively undermines your conclusion. That's your evidentiary foundation.

Where is the peer-reviewed paper establishing SAP as a reliable decadal global temperature proxy on a planet with oceans?

Still waiting.

I warned him not to take the Mars equation as you would dice and slice him.

 

[Robert W]

Atmospheric CO₂ has risen from 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 420 ppm today.

Fact. Another fact is CO2 is excellent for plant life. We were headed for plant extinction and then CO2 wonderfully increased. Earth daily is greener than before. Trees and all sort of plants welcome CO2.

 

[Rumpole]

Fact. Another fact is CO2 is excellent for plant life. We were headed for plant extinction and then CO2 wonderfully increased. Earth daily is greener than before. Trees and all sort of plants welcome CO2.

Robert, you're right--and that's actually not in dispute. CO₂ is plant food. Elevated CO₂ does accelerate photosynthesis under controlled conditions, and satellite data does show increased vegetation cover in some regions. NASA found that between a quarter and a half of Earth's vegetated land showed significant greening over the past 35 years, with rising CO₂ as the dominant driver. That's a real effect and I won't pretend otherwise.

But here's where it gets complicated: the same NASA study explicitly states that while rising CO₂ can benefit plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. And the greening effect comes with a catch--the nutritional quality of crops declines under elevated CO₂. Lower protein, lower zinc, lower iron. More biomass, less nutrition. That's not a win, that's a tradeoff.

CO₂ being beneficial to plants in some respects is true. It is not, however, a reason to dismiss the rest of the physical system that CO₂ is simultaneously destabilizing. A rising tide lifts all boats--until it floods the harbor.

I'll take the partial agreement though, Robert. That's more than I've gotten from EMH all day.

If you want the data on the satellite greening you mentioned, NASA tracks it here

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

But as for the nutritional catch--where more biomass equals fewer nutrients like protein, iron, and zinc--the empirical data and peer-reviewed modeling on that specific trade-off is detailed here:

Crop Nutrient Decrease from CO2 Concentration—Graph

Overview for the En-ROADS graph “Crop Nutrient Decrease from CO2 Concentration.” Big Messages: The graph shows the average reductions in three key dietary nutrients (protein, iron and zinc) across four major staple crops. In laborato...

support.climateinteractive.org

 

[Robert W]

Robert, you're right--and that's actually not in dispute. CO₂ is plant food. Elevated CO₂ does accelerate photosynthesis under controlled conditions, and satellite data does show increased vegetation cover in some regions. NASA found that between a quarter and a half of Earth's vegetated land showed significant greening over the past 35 years, with rising CO₂ as the dominant driver. That's a real effect and I won't pretend otherwise.

But here's where it gets complicated: the same NASA study explicitly states that while rising CO₂ can benefit plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. And the greening effect comes with a catch--the nutritional quality of crops declines under elevated CO₂. Lower protein, lower zinc, lower iron. More biomass, less nutrition. That's not a win, that's a tradeoff.

Yes, you are right that I am right. Let's not examine the greenhouse effect other than on Greenhouses.
Thank you for bringing up greenhouses above. Will you please hand over to the forum proof that more CO2 is harmful? Will you address when CO2 fell tragically low?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's go through your five points one at a time, because this is where your argument actually collapses.

Point 1--"All forms of air pressure correlate with temperature." Locally, yes. That's weather. A warm air mass expands and creates low pressure. A cold air mass contracts and creates high pressure. This is why meteorologists use barometric pressure to forecast storms. But you're making a planetary claim--that global mean SAP functions as a reliable proxy for global mean temperature over decadal timescales. That requires a completely different physical mechanism, and you haven't identified one. Correlation in weather systems does not establish SAP as a century-scale global thermometer.

Point 2--Mars. Mars is doing a lot of work in your argument and it can't carry the load. Mars has no oceans, no hydrological cycle, no biosphere, and an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO₂ at about 1% of Earth's atmospheric density. Its SAP variations are driven primarily by CO₂ sublimation and deposition at the poles--the atmosphere literally freezes and thaws seasonally. You're asking a Mars analogy to transfer to a planet with dynamic oceans, complex land-sea pressure gradients, a water vapor feedback system, and an atmosphere 100 times denser. That's not a parallel. That's a completely different physical system.

Point 3--Earth's January SAP bump. You're describing a well-understood orbital mechanics effect--Earth is slightly closer to the Sun in January, receives marginally more solar radiation, and SAP ticks up fractionally. This actually hurts your argument. It demonstrates that SAP responds to solar forcing on short timescales. Decades of greenhouse forcing should show a signal too--unless you're prepared to explain why one forcing registers and the other doesn't. You haven't done that.

Point 4--That formula you posted--the barometric equation. T appears in the denominator governing how pressure varies with altitude. A warming atmosphere expands vertically and redistributes pressure upward. Surface pressure can stay flat or decline even as the atmosphere warms. You handed me a formula that is compatible with AGW and called it a refutation. It isn't. It's confirmation that your own cited physics doesn't support your conclusion. Precise measurement of a stable quantity does not make that quantity a global temperature proxy. A ruler measures length with extraordinary precision. That doesn't mean stable ruler readings tell you the temperature of the room.

Point 5--Earth SAP flat to down for 60+ years. This is your core claim and here's where it breaks entirely. You're asserting that flat SAP proves no atmospheric mass increase--therefore no net ice melt. But you've already conceded the mechanism yourself without realizing it: ice melt adds water to the ocean, not mass to the atmosphere. Sea ice melt is volume displacement--it was already floating. Land ice melt runs into the ocean. Neither pathway adds meaningful mass to the atmosphere. Flat SAP is therefore completely compatible with ongoing land ice melt and sea level rise. Your own logic refutes your own conclusion.

And here's what you still haven't touched: satellite tropospheric temperature measurements, ocean heat content to 2,000 meter depth, three decades of radar altimetry showing sea level rise, GRACE gravitational satellites directly measuring ice mass loss, and radiative forcing measurements confirming CO₂'s heat-trapping mechanism in the actual atmosphere. Eight independent measurement streams from competing institutions in different countries with different funding and different methodologies--all pointing the same direction.

You called my global mean temperature record laughable because it relies on ice cores. But your global mean temperature record is one metric--SAP--interpreted through a Mars analogy, a January orbital blip, and a barometric equation that actively undermines your conclusion. That's your evidentiary foundation.

Where is the peer-reviewed paper establishing SAP as a reliable decadal global temperature proxy on a planet with oceans?

Still waiting.

This is your core claim and here's where it breaks entirely. You're asserting that flat SAP proves no atmospheric mass increase--therefore no net ice melt. But you've already conceded the mechanism yourself without realizing it: ice melt adds water to the ocean, not mass to the atmosphere.

He believes that every foot of ice contains 11 inches of compressed atmosphere.
That's why the atmosphere is currently ~1 bar but was 3-5 bars during the Jurassic.
The ice contains 2-4 times as much air as the atmosphere.

Don't ask him to prove it.

 

[Robert W]

Robert, you're right--and that's actually not in dispute. CO₂ is plant food. Elevated CO₂ does accelerate photosynthesis under controlled conditions, and satellite data does show increased vegetation cover in some regions. NASA found that between a quarter and a half of Earth's vegetated land showed significant greening over the past 35 years, with rising CO₂ as the dominant driver. That's a real effect and I won't pretend otherwise.

But here's where it gets complicated: the same NASA study explicitly states that while rising CO₂ can benefit plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. And the greening effect comes with a catch--the nutritional quality of crops declines under elevated CO₂. Lower protein, lower zinc, lower iron. More biomass, less nutrition. That's not a win, that's a tradeoff.

CO₂ being beneficial to plants in some respects is true. It is not, however, a reason to dismiss the rest of the physical system that CO₂ is simultaneously destabilizing. A rising tide lifts all boats--until it floods the harbor.

I'll take the partial agreement though, Robert. That's more than I've gotten from EMH all day.

If you want the data on the satellite greening you mentioned, NASA tracks it here

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

But as for the nutritional catch--where more biomass equals fewer nutrients like protein, iron, and zinc--the empirical data and peer-reviewed modeling on that specific trade-off is detailed here:

Crop Nutrient Decrease from CO2 Concentration—Graph

Overview for the En-ROADS graph “Crop Nutrient Decrease from CO2 Concentration.” Big Messages: The graph shows the average reductions in three key dietary nutrients (protein, iron and zinc) across four major staple crops. In laborato...

support.climateinteractive.org

“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.

Read the paper at Nature Climate Change.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes, you are right that I am right. Let's not examine the greenhouse effect other than on Greenhouses.
Thank you for bringing up greenhouses above. Will you please hand over to the forum proof that more CO2 is harmful? Will you address when CO2 fell tragically low?

Robert, fair questions and I'll take them seriously.


On proof that more CO2 is harmful: The mechanism isn't complicated. CO2 is transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation but absorbs outgoing longwave infrared radiation -- heat trying to escape back to space. This was established by John Tyndall in 1859 and has been confirmed by direct atmospheric measurement ever since. More CO2 means more of that outgoing heat gets trapped.
John Tyndall (1820 - 1893) - NASA Science
Causes - NASA Science

We can measure the specific infrared wavelengths CO2 absorbs in a laboratory, and we can observe those same wavelengths being absorbed in the actual atmosphere from satellites. This isn't modeling or projection -- it's direct observational evidence. In fact, a 2024 NASA JPL study directly measured, for the first time, how increasing CO2 reduces Earth's ability to emit infrared radiation to space, with results matching theoretical predictions exactly.Confirming a Critical Foundation of the Science of Global Warming – AIRS

The harm isn't that CO2 exists. It's that we're adding it faster than the carbon cycle can absorb it, shifting the energy balance of a system that took millions of years to stabilize. The Carbon Cycle - NASA Science

On CO2 falling tragically low: You're absolutely right to raise this, and I mean that. During the last glacial maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 dropped to around 180 ppm -- dangerously close to the threshold below which C3 plants, which include most of our food crops, begin to struggle to photosynthesize effectively. NOAA confirms that during the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between roughly 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during warmer interglacial periods. Life on Earth has a CO2 floor as well as a ceiling. Nobody serious disputes that. News - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

The question isn't whether CO2 is necessary -- it is -- the question is whether 420 ppm and climbing represents a stable equilibrium for a civilization built on coastlines, predictable rainfall, and agricultural zones that took 10,000 years to develop. Carbon Dioxide - Earth Indicator - NASA Science

The dose, Robert, makes the poison.

​