So if this is such an existential threat, what's been happening since 2011? Why isn't each subsequent summer breaking the previous' record?

So you didn't really have a value and had to google it up just like I would have to?

Fraud...

if people would fully comply, hurricanes, floods and fires will stop immediately and people won't need cars to evacuate the cities, and tens of thousands won't die.

Pay no mind to Xwomxn. She doesn't know that a warmer planet is better in general for the food supply of Earth.

I'm firmly anti ice age. I'm also against mini ice age.

believe what you want bud.

Nobody needs your permission for that.

wxmanX said:

---

believe what you want bud.

---

I do. The truth.

Quote:

---

But for me it from 7B humans polluting the planet.

---

ah so the x (former?) woman thinks it's population that raised the earth's temperature this time. (It must have been something else all the other times the earth's climate was warmer over the past few million years.). People that concerned about population growth rates tend to be very passionate about promoting aborting pregnancies, being gay, changing genders and demonizing traditional religions. Because we in the western world really need negative population growth to counteract the population explosions in India and Africa so the earth's temp can drop and we don't all starve. It's settled science! Just bringing the data!

wxmanX said:

---

Greece/France/Africa/China/Japan all experienced hottest on record.

Big guberment won't solve this...technology will eventually.

---

GWB already has a weather machine. Just need to fire it up.

In all seriousness, do people actually think humans can stop hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, hot weather, etc.? Lol

wxmanX said:

---

use google, I think you can figure it out.

Oh, wait here it is.


https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/



Oh yea, here is another one.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/

---

As I already mentioned earlier on this thread, sea surface temperatures aren't a valid benchmark for determining peak temperatures, nor should they be used in climate models. Due to the radiative effect of light reflecting off the surface, seas surface temps can be up to 2 degrees higher than the actual water temperature. Only subsurface buoy readings should be used to determine ocean temperatures.

And if you want to unilaterally claim that this is the hottest year on record, can you please provide a graph of global average temperatures that actually shows the higher average WITHOUT the error bars overlapping those from previous years? Every year the last several years has been "the hottest on record" and yet every year the error range for the average overlaps the year before. By definition, if the error bars overlap, then the average isn't statistically higher than the previous year.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you really shouldn't be making any absolute assertions as to the significance of climate data. Go take a statistics class and then join the discussion.

"I already mentioned earlier on this thread, sea surface temperatures aren't a valid benchmark for determining peak temperatures, nor should they be used in climate models. Due to the radiative effect of light reflecting off the surface, seas surface temps can be up to 2 degrees higher than the actual water temperature. Only subsurface buoy readings should be used to determine ocean temperatures."

huh? Satellites use IR to determine water temperature.

And there are plenty of buoy readings out there showing warmer temperatures as well. Oceans are absorbing the excess heat from co2 and other greenhouse gases. Go look it up.



And yes, I took statistics (grad level too).

Cheers.

Nothing to solve
It is natural

Matt Hooper said:

---

I'm firmly anti ice age. I'm also against mini ice age.

---

Sometimes you just have to draw your line in the sand. Not in the ice, because glaciers move. I'm on team Anti-ice.

Yes, and like all things, the oceans radiate at the surface. You have to infer what the temperatures below the surface may be based on that data, but as the oceans are not uniform solids, that data is of somewhat limited utility.

Even if the entire global atmospheric and oceanic system is warming, that is not necessarily a bad thing so long as the rate of change doesn't cause a massive anoxic event. Otherwise, since we don't have a supercontinent as the primary tectonic arrangement right now, we won't get oceanic stagnation or massive continental desertification.

The earth is is prime arrangement for life to NET BENEFIT from warming, but that conclusion isn't politically useful. Fear is needed to manipulate and control the population and exploit them.

upper 2000 m of oceans.

Yes, there appears to be an increase in energy in the water per that chart. Too bad the time window is so short that we don't know if it matters much or not, and there's no data on the distribution of the energy, as it surely isn't uniform.

Not to mention, as shown previously, the heat content in the oceans is orders of magnitude higher than the atmosphere. It's simple narcissist twisting of physics and thermodynamics to think the atmosphere drives the climate and the oceans are passive bystanders.

The atmosphere drives weather. The oceans drive climate.

interesting stats. better give all my money to the government then, pronto!

"Not to mention, as shown previously, the heat content in the oceans is orders of magnitude higher than the atmosphere. It's simple narcissist twisting of physics and thermodynamics to think the atmosphere drives the climate and the oceans are passive bystanders.

The atmosphere drives weather. The oceans drive climate"

Well, oceans drive the weather too. Specifically, El Nino/La Nina/AMO.

Heat content of oceans increasing because the heat can't escape the atmosphere, as co2 and other greenhouse gases are blocking IR.

It was 56 on my walk this morning.

Quote:

---

Well, oceans drive the weather too. Specifically, El Nino/La Nina/AMO.

Heat content of oceans increasing because the heat can't escape the atmosphere, as co2 and other greenhouse gases are blocking IR.

---

Not that you'll see the blatant error in your argument, but you just admitted that the atmosphere is a weather driver, not a climate driver. Of course, governments can't tax the ocean or impoverish people with a climate scam if they admit it is the oceans that drive climate, not weather.

Yes, spontaneous natural ocean events can also drive weather (like El Nino/La Nina), but the oceans are the long-term drivers of climate, not the atmosphere. That is why the "climate" change scam is nothing more than an attempt to subvert freedom in the name of government control. That is also why CAGW purveyors attempt to use weather events to scare people into submitting to the CAGW...sorry, "climate" change....hoax.

Interesting that the trend is global oceanic heat content is so similar to this:



The correlation below is FAR better than anything global circulation models develop. Why would that be?

i guess noaa, nasa, ncdc all work together to fudge data so they can get $.

wxmanX said:

---

i guess noaa, nasa, ncdc all work together to fudge data so they can get $.

---

Now you've got it. They've all been caught fudging the data. Why would they do that?

as does JMA, ECMWF, AUSTRALIA, they all fudge it.

If they fudge it, why does a person like me, who gets the raw data and do their own analytics see the trend too?

If I had *any* confidence that you actually got it, then that would be a breakthrough. Sadly, I know that is not the case.

I'm curious, though. How much funding and career potential would those that work for these agencies have if they produced unadjusted data that showed a minor or no warming trend?

I am sure they would be happy to see no trend. I would.

wxmanX said:

---

I am sure they would be happy to see no trend. I would.

---

So, you've admitted that the atmosphere drives weather, not climate.

You've admitted that all of the agency climate data that is used drive political policy is faked...sorry, fudged.

And, yet, you still don't see anything wrong with the implementation of punitive political policies that impoverish Americans and reduce overall defense readiness? For someone who does some much of his own data analysis using raw data, you sure seem to only accept conclusions that reinforce your preconceived biases.

wxmanX said:

---

as does JMA, ECMWF, AUSTRALIA, they all fudge it.

If they fudge it, why does a person like me, who gets the raw data and do their own analytics see the trend too?

---

They use the Same data sets

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdYi-tF199LYPmWhdDuC5SHesFrLYB0htwRA&usqp=CAU

Shiner, I haven't admitted that.

There is no fudging of data, if there is, it would be peer reviewed to death.
Climate scientists do it for the science, not the $.
oceans drive the climate, and they are getting warmer.
oceans are warming from co2 / ch4 increasing, blocking IR.

wxmanX said:

---

Shiner, I haven't admitted that.

There is no fudging of data, if there is, it would be peer reviewed to death.
Climate scientists do it for the science, not the $.
oceans drive the climate, and they are getting warmer.
oceans are warming from co2 / ch4 increasing, blocking IR.

---

Prepare to die then because there is zero we can do to control the temperature of the earth. Get your affairs in order

It radiates away more slowly, rather, until a greater differential exists between surface temp and space, and a different equilibrium point is reached at the rate that heat radiates through the atmosphere into space. The greater the difference, the more rapid the radiation as the system seeks an equilibrium.

It wants always to move back to equilibrium.

If you have to fall back on "peer review" to save your belief in the unscientific, political hypothesis that is "climate" change, then, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious, you are not scientific despite all of your hollow posturing.

You clearly admitted above that they all fudge the data.

You provide no scientific justification for said data manipulation nor any of your own data analysis from raw data that you claim to have. Even UHI adjustments add to the warming trend which is not how you correct for a warm bias induced by urbanization.

By the way, "peer review" does not mean any scientific premise is correct. Rather, at best it is an unbiased review of published work to ensure it conforms to minimum scientific standards. As it is implemented today, it is a political filter used by climate zealots to squelch any opposing data and scientific analysis.