The great global warming fraud

[Rumpole]

“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.

Robert, first thing I want you to know is that I always enjoy discussion with anyone who is willing to engage, as you do. Now then....

Robert, I appreciate the careful reading--but you just quoted my own source back at me, and it still supports my argument. That quote is from the same NASA greening study I cited. And what does Canadell actually say? That the detection of greening is based on data--meaning it's observed, measured, not modeled, not disputed. The attribution question--what caused it--involves modeling. That's not a scandal. That's a scientist being precise about the difference between observation and inference, which is exactly what rigorous science looks like.

What Canadell does not say: that CO2 didn't cause the greening. What he does not say: that the models are unreliable. What he explicitly does say: the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components and are continually being improved. That's not a concession. That's a description of how science advances.

And here's where this gets uncomfortable for your position, Robert. You're implying that because attribution involves modeling, we should discount it. But that standard, applied consistently, eliminates your own argument too. Every claim about what CO2 does or doesn't do--including yours--rests on some model of how atmospheric systems work. You don't get to demand model-free certainty from one side of the debate while exempting the other.

The bottom line is this: Earth has greened. That's the observation. CO2 is the dominant driver. That's what the models--described by NASA as the best possible simulation available--conclude. And the same study you just quoted also states explicitly that CO2 is the chief culprit of climate change.

 

[Robert W]

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.

That unfortunately is not the whole story. I was talking of super low levels of CO2 are recently as 1880.
Plants were getting close to vanishing forever.

Recall when CO2 was dangerously low?

​

 

[Robert W]

Robert, first thing I want you to know is that I always enjoy discussion with anyone who is willing to engage, as you do. Now then....

Robert, I appreciate the careful reading--but you just quoted my own source back at me, and it still supports my argument. That quote is from the same NASA greening study I cited. And what does Canadell actually say? That the detection of greening is based on data--meaning it's observed, measured, not modeled, not disputed. The attribution question--what caused it--involves modeling. That's not a scandal. That's a scientist being precise about the difference between observation and inference, which is exactly what rigorous science looks like.

What Canadell does not say: that CO2 didn't cause the greening. What he does not say: that the models are unreliable. What he explicitly does say: the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components and are continually being improved. That's not a concession. That's a description of how science advances.

And here's where this gets uncomfortable for your position, Robert. You're implying that because attribution involves modeling, we should discount it. But that standard, applied consistently, eliminates your own argument too. Every claim about what CO2 does or doesn't do--including yours--rests on some model of how atmospheric systems work. You don't get to demand model-free certainty from one side of the debate while exempting the other.

The bottom line is this: Earth has greened. That's the observation. CO2 is the dominant driver. That's what the models--described by NASA as the best possible simulation available--conclude. And the same study you just quoted also states explicitly that CO2 is the chief culprit of climate change.

The recent cooling cycle causes me to put out that hair on fire problem you still have.

EMH suffers from many delusions. I won't go into some of them, but he suffers. Antarctica is like a massive refrigerator, and the fact ice has added so many gigatons there shows me our refrigerator is working fine.

I also like how you argue.

1. 15 gigatons
   Satellite data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported an astonishing gain of around 15 gigatons of ice between February and May of this year.
   
   climatecosmos.com
   Sudden Antarctic Ice Surge Leaves Scientists Stunned
   
   
   
2. 
   
   ScienceBlog.com
   https://scienceblog.com › sciencechina › ...
   

   Antarctic Ice Sheet Records Surprising Mass Gain After …​

   May 4, 2025 · A comprehensive new study reveals the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) experienced unexpected mass gain between 2021-2023, temporarily reversing a …

 

[Rumpole]

That unfortunately is not the whole story. I was talking of super low levels of CO2 are recently as 1880.
Plants were getting close to vanishing forever.

Recall when CO2 was dangerously low?


View attachment 1264871

Robert, thank you for that chart -- it actually makes my case better than I did.

What you've just shown me is global CO2 emissions exploding from 204 MtCO2 in 1850 to over 20,500 MtCO2 by 1979, with the acceleration continuing through 2022. That's roughly a 100-fold increase in emissions in under 200 years.

That's not a counterargument. That's the problem, illustrated.

That chart is precisely why atmospheric CO2 has gone from the stable 280 ppm baseline that supported 6,000 years of human civilization to 420 ppm and climbing today -- at a rate NOAA confirms is 100 times faster than any previous natural increase in 800,000 years of geological record. You've shown me the engine. I've been describing the destination.

And notice what the chart doesn't show: what that accumulation does to the atmosphere once it gets there. It doesn't show ocean heat content. It doesn't show sea level. It doesn't show the radiative forcing measurements NASA confirmed in 2024. It stops at the smokestack, not at the consequence.

So yes, emissions went up dramatically. We agree on that completely. The question we're debating is what happens next, and the answer to that question is written in eight independent measurement streams all pointing the same direction.

You posted the cause. I've been describing the effect. We're not as far apart on the facts as you might think -- we just disagree on what they mean.

 

[Rumpole]

The recent cooling cycle causes me to put out that hair on fire problem you still have.

EMH suffers from many delusions. I won't go into some of them, but he suffers. Antarctica is like a massive refrigerator, and the fact ice has added so many gigatons there shows me our refrigerator is working fine.

I also like how you argue.

1. 15 gigatons
   Satellite data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported an astonishing gain of around 15 gigatons of ice between February and May of this year.
   
   climatecosmos.com
   Sudden Antarctic Ice Surge Leaves Scientists Stunned
   
   
   
2. 
   
   ScienceBlog.com
   https://scienceblog.com › sciencechina › ...
   

   Antarctic Ice Sheet Records Surprising Mass Gain After …​

   May 4, 2025 · A comprehensive new study reveals the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) experienced unexpected mass gain between 2021-2023, temporarily reversing a …

Robert, I read both sources you cited. Thanks.

The second link in particular is worth taking seriously--it's based on 22 years of GRACE satellite gravimetry data from a peer-reviewed study, and it confirms what you're pointing to: a genuine, surprising mass gain in the Antarctic Ice Sheet between 2021 and 2023. That's real science and I'm not going to dismiss it.

But here's what the same study shows across those 22 years, and I think this is where our interpretations diverge. The researchers identify three distinct periods. Moderate ice loss from 2002 to 2010. Then that loss rate nearly doubled from 2011 to 2020. Then the 2021-2023 gain--which the researchers attribute to anomalous precipitation accumulation, essentially an unusual weather pattern, not a structural reversal of the trend.

And the study is careful about what that gain means. The researchers note that Antarctica's cumulative contribution to global sea level rise peaked at nearly 6mm by February 2020 before declining slightly--but it's still 5.1mm above where it started. The gain didn't erase the loss. It partially offset one year's contribution.

Then there's this, from your own source, about four East Antarctic glacier systems--Totten, Moscow University, Denman, and Vincennes Bay--that have shifted from stability to accelerating mass loss: complete disintegration of just those four systems could trigger more than 7 meters of global sea level rise.

Seven meters of sea level rise. From four glaciers. According to the study you just cited.

The short-term gain is real. The long-term trajectory is also real. And your own sources describe both.

 

[Robert W]

Robert, I read both sources you cited. Thanks.

The second link in particular is worth taking seriously--it's based on 22 years of GRACE satellite gravimetry data from a peer-reviewed study, and it confirms what you're pointing to: a genuine, surprising mass gain in the Antarctic Ice Sheet between 2021 and 2023. That's real science and I'm not going to dismiss it.

But here's what the same study shows across those 22 years, and I think this is where our interpretations diverge. The researchers identify three distinct periods. Moderate ice loss from 2002 to 2010. Then that loss rate nearly doubled from 2011 to 2020. Then the 2021-2023 gain--which the researchers attribute to anomalous precipitation accumulation, essentially an unusual weather pattern, not a structural reversal of the trend.

And the study is careful about what that gain means. The researchers note that Antarctica's cumulative contribution to global sea level rise peaked at nearly 6mm by February 2020 before declining slightly--but it's still 5.1mm above where it started. The gain didn't erase the loss. It partially offset one year's contribution.

Then there's this, from your own source, about four East Antarctic glacier systems--Totten, Moscow University, Denman, and Vincennes Bay--that have shifted from stability to accelerating mass loss: complete disintegration of just those four systems could trigger more than 7 meters of global sea level rise.

Seven meters of sea level rise. From four glaciers. According to the study you just cited.

The short-term gain is real. The long-term trajectory is also real. And your own sources describe both.

GRACE Mission Overview

The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) is a joint partnership between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States and Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR) in Germany [Tapley et al., 2004]. GRACE was selected as the second mission under the NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program in May 1997 and launched in March 2002. The accurate maps of time-variable gravity inferred from the GRACE observations have revolutionized the ability to monitor mass variability caused by a variety of geophysical processes, leading to important discoveries that span the Earth sciences. Sources of mass variability measured by GRACE include: changes due to surface and deep currents in the ocean; runoff and ground water storage on land masses; exchanges between ice sheets or glaciers and the ocean; and solid Earth mass changes from earthquakes and glacial isostatic adjustment. Designed for a nominal mission lifetime of five years, GRACE is currently operating in an extended mission phase, and is expected to continue through at least late 2017. 9 years ago.

 

[EMH]

Local conditions can change air pressure.

That aren't the same

Local weather is noise. Collect data for a full year and the noise "washes out." That how we get this...


The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101.325 kPa (1,013.25 hPa), which is equivalent to 1,013.25 millibars, 760 torr (or about 760 mmHg), about 29.9212 inHg, or about 14.696 psi. The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth; that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately one atm.


Amazing how with the "noise" from local weather the "STANDARD" sea level surface air pressure is defined to 6 digits, pretty precise....

 

[EMH]

That's the problem

It is NOT a problem since it hasn't warmed anything.

 

[EMH]

EMH suffers from

being 100% correct, not being CHOSEN, and CHOSEN faux skeptics cannot refute one word EMH posts here... and that makes CHOSEN FAUX SKEPTICS like Robert W engage in drive byes while being unable to answer even basic climate questions...

 

[EMH]

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.

A planet with an atmosphere is DATA. You HATE that data, but you cannot refute anything.


Mars proves that when a planet warms, surface air pressure rises.

You HATE that truth because you are CHOSEN faux skeptic TRAITOR who wants CO2 FRAUD to continue...

 

[EMH]

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

Why are you?

Correct, you aren't talking about the AVERAGE PLANETARY TEMPERATURE either, since that leads to the correct conclusion that Earth hasn't warmed at all, and you, as a Mossad Faux Skeptic, don't want CO2 FRAUD busted, because CO2 FRAUD is a CHOSEN fraud and you are on the side of the Chosen and NOT the AMERICAN.

 

[EMH]

More CO2 means more of that outgoing heat gets trapped

You have NO WARMING in the ACTUAL DATA from the atmosphere. NONE. You just pollute this section by posting bullshit everyone with an IQ over 5 already knows is bullshit.

 

[EMH]

You just admitted your SAP argument only holds under a condition -- constant atmospheric mass

Liar, mass AND TEMPERATURE, minor omission there.

Water vapor -- the atmosphere's most abundant greenhouse gas -- has increased as the atmosphere warms and holds more moisture

CO2 FRAUD needs to make up its mind since it also blames "warming" for DROUGHTS AND FIRES and more atmospheric H2O would REDUCE BOTH... duh....

They have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE AT ALL of more atmospheric H2O, ZERO.

The thermal profile of the atmosphere has shifted, with the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling, exactly as greenhouse forcing predicts

According to the ACTUAL unFUDGED DATA from satellites and balloons, atmosphere hasn't warmed at all. Now you are claiming increasing CO2 causes part of atmosphere to cool, hilarious...

Surface Air Pressure also proves Earth's atmosphere has not warmed at all in the past 60+ years.

Ocean heat content has risen dramatically

Complete BS outed as such by NO INCREASING CANE ACTIVITY. If oceans were warming, canes would go up, and they have not.

 

[Robert W]

You HATE that truth because you are CHOSEN faux skeptic TRAITOR who wants CO2 FRAUD to continue...

No I do not. I post exposure of the CO2 farud so much, but it is scientific. Not bullshit about a distant planet.

 

[Robert W]

You have NO WARMING in the ACTUAL DATA from the atmosphere. NONE. You just pollute this section by posting bullshit everyone with an IQ over 5 already knows is bullshit.

If you have evidence, by all means produce it.

 

[EMH]

A warm air mass expands and creates low pressure

wrong and proven so by high pressure heat dome weather.

A cold air mass contracts and creates high pressure

density is not pressure. You are clearly a flop in basic science. Colder areas have higher air density but the air pressure is the same at a given altitude.

that global mean SAP functions as a reliable proxy for global mean temperature over decadal timescales

and annual, since both Mars and Earth have rising SAP as planet gets closer to Sun, completely validating the point. You have ZERO planets that don't do that.

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

LMFAO!!!

Never mind THEY BOTH RESPOND to CLOSER TO SUN with HIGHER SAP, BOTH....

Are you going to join Toddster and argue CLOSER TO SUN does not mean WARMER?

that SAP responds to solar forcing

LOL!!!

GoogAI

Solar forcing refers to the physical mechanism where variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth drive changes in the planet's climate system


and you have ZERO evidence of any statistically significant changes in Sun's output, ZERO.

Decades of greenhouse forcing

have resulted in precisely ZERO warming in the atmosphere....

Sincerely,

satellites
balloons
SAP

and your side has DOCUMENTED FUDGE from 2005 to "refute" it.

T appears in the denominator governing how pressure varies with altitude

all altitudes of atmospheric air pressure are correlated with T temperature, thanks for noticing....

A warming atmosphere expands vertically and redistributes pressure upward.

because the warming caused air pressure to INCREASE, thanks for noticing....

Precise measurement of a stable quantity does not make that quantity a global temperature proxy.

you seem to think the T in that equation is LOCAL, it is NOT, it is GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE

You're asserting that flat SAP proves no atmospheric mass increase--therefore no net ice melt

another intentional lie/falsehood.

mass AND TEMPERATURE, not just mass, got it....

ice melt adds water to the ocean, not mass to the atmosphere

That's the last lie they have.

So, if that was true and there is no gas in AA's ice....


HOW DID WE GET CO2 READINGS FROM THE PAST WITH ICE CORES???

DUH....


THERE IS MORE AIR TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE THAN THERE IS IN THE ATMOSPHERE, and the FLYING DINOs are part of that TRUTH.

 

[Robert W]

being 100% correct, not being CHOSEN, and CHOSEN faux skeptics cannot refute one word EMH posts here... and that makes CHOSEN FAUX SKEPTICS like Robert W engage in drive byes while being unable to answer even basic climate questions...

You see yourself as exalted, but you come up with wild conspiracy theories all the time.
Like Mars dictates climate on Earth. Like a missile hit the pentagon. Like buildings hit by airplanes in NY City were blown up and the planes did not exist.

 

[EMH]

No I do not. I post exposure of the CO2 farud so much, but it is scientific. Not bullshit about a distant planet.

You ACCEPT and PROMOTE the concept that Earth has "warmed." You are a Chosen TRAITOR and PART OF CO2 FRAUD. You reject the truth you cannot refute that refutes the "warming" completely, because you want Americans to believe "warming" because your demographic is SOAKING the US taxpayer because of it.

 

[Robert W]

Like
Dislike

Low-pressure weather forms when air rises due to warming or atmospheric disturbances, creating a region of lower pressure that draws in surrounding air and often leads to clouds, wind, and precipitation.​

How Low-Pressure Systems Form​

Low-pressure areas occur when the atmospheric pressure at a location is lower than the surrounding regions. This happens primarily because warm air rises, leaving less air pressing down on the surface. Warm air is less dense than cool air, so as it ascends, it creates a vacuum-like effect that draws in surrounding air, which also rises, forming a self-sustaining cycle of inflow and upward motion scienceinsights.org+1.

Key Causes​

1. Temperature Differences: Low-pressure systems often form along boundaries where warm and cold air masses meet, such as the polar front. Warm air flows over denser cold air, creating instability and upward motion that reduces surface pressure SurferToday.com+1.
2. Thermal Lows: Localized heating of land or water surfaces can create thermal lows. For example, deserts or sun-heated islands warm the air above them, causing it to rise and lower the surface pressure. Large-scale thermal lows can drive phenomena like monsoons Wikipedia+1.
3. Atmospheric Divergence Aloft: Low-pressure systems can also develop when winds in the upper atmosphere diverge, causing air below to rise to fill the gap. This process, known as cyclogenesis, is common near upper-level troughs and shortwave disturbances Wikipedia.
4. Condensation and Latent Heat: Rising air cools and condenses, forming clouds and precipitation. The release of latent heat during condensation warms the air column, causing it to expand and further reduce surface pressure. This mechanism is especially pronounced in tropical cyclones and intense storms Weather Street.

Effects of Low Pressure​

• Wind Patterns: Air flows toward the low-pressure center, but the Coriolis effect causes winds to spiral counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere, creating cyclonic circulation scienceinsights.org+1.
• Weather Conditions: Rising air leads to cloud formation and precipitation, making low-pressure systems associated with rain, storms, and unsettled weather scienceinsights.org+1.
  In summary, low-pressure weather is caused by rising warm air, temperature contrasts, upper-level atmospheric divergence, and latent heat release, all of which reduce surface pressure and drive the characteristic winds and precipitation patterns of these systems scienceinsights.org+4.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Local weather is noise. Collect data for a full year and the noise "washes out." That how we get this...


The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101.325 kPa (1,013.25 hPa), which is equivalent to 1,013.25 millibars, 760 torr (or about 760 mmHg), about 29.9212 inHg, or about 14.696 psi. The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth; that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately one atm.


Amazing how with the "noise" from local weather the "STANDARD" sea level surface air pressure is defined to 6 digits, pretty precise....

Your fact-free claims are noise.

Amazing how with the "noise" from local weather the "STANDARD" sea level surface air pressure is defined to 6 digits,

It's not amazing at all.

The boiling point of water is a "standard".
The speed of light is a "standard".

So what?