Do you feel stupid? It could be catastrophic climate change

[Anomalism]

Oh, it isn't belief, as in a religious sense. Thats what you folks do. You have decided that thinking for yourself is anathema, so you subjugate yourselves to your highpriests, and their computer generated scriptures.

I'll stick with the scientific method.

You're turning what I asked into something it wasn't. I'm asking if the smart people are just the ones that agree with you. A belief can be factual or not. We all have beliefs about everything. I was trying to figure out if you're one of those people that doesn't realize intelligent people exist on both sides of most disagreements.

 

[westwall]

You're turning what I asked into something it wasn't. I'm asking if the smart people are just the ones that agree with you. A belief can be factual or not. We all have beliefs about everything. I was trying to figure out if you're one of those people that doesn't realize intelligent people exist on both sides of most disagreements.

No, not at all. The smart people are those that adhere to the scientific method.

So long as they follow the rules laid down over centuries to separate "faith" from fact, they are fine, regardless of if we agree or not.

 

[yidnar]

CC is the biggest scam foisted upon the world since religion.

Christian Charites feed millions of people around the world annually ..


AI Overview




It is difficult to determine an exact total number of people saved from starving by Christian charities, as relief efforts range from immediate emergency food aid to long-term agricultural development. However, data indicates that individual Christian organizations reach tens of millions of people annually.
World Vision +1
Key Impact Data from Major Christian Charities (Approximate Annual Figures)

• World Vision: Has reached over 1 million people with emergency food aid in East Africa alone.
  World Vision
• Salvation Army: Assists over 32 million people in the United States alone every year.
• Mission Feeding: Reports feeding 350,000 children every day.
  Facebook·LIFE Today
• Samaritan's Purse: Provided over 38,000 metric tons of food in 13 countries in 2025.
  Samaritan's Purse
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Spent over US$1 billion on global humanitarian projects in 2024, including massive nutritional support.
  Facebook·Church News
• Food for the Hungry: Works through partnerships, such as with Global Hunger Relief (Southern Baptists), which operates in North America and internationally.
  Global Hunger Relief

Contextual Data on Faith-Based Hunger Relief

• Local Impact: Nearly half of all U.S. congregations participate in some kind of food distribution program.
  The Conversation
• Scope: In 2023, approximately 47 million people, including nearly 14 million children, lived in food-insecure households in the U.S. and relied on food assistance, including many church-run pantries.
  Feeding America
• Combined Effort: Major Christian organizations often coordinate with the UN and local churches to deliver aid, particularly in areas like South Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria .

 

[luiza]

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:




No you're just stupid ... Take an extra antidepressant
Also socialism will work ..we will get it right this time and it won't be authoritarian at all..... we swear

Define communism

Trillions pissed away because of f****** qualified experts and useful idiots
Pffft

Yes .
But it has Deflected from the real elephants in the room

Climate change as a result of the Solar Minimum and separately the falling Magnetic Force Field and the steady march of Magnetic Pole Shift.
There has been virtual silence about these matters which dwarf anything else-- particularly the failing strength of the Magnetic Field .

 

[Oddball]

CC is the biggest scam foisted upon the world since religion.

It IS a religion....Hence, the warmer loons will just carry on as though this never happened.

 

[Oddball]

The scenario research community has acknowledged this. It's not a secret admission, it's been discussed openly in the literature for years.

Many studies and media reports treated it as what will happen without policy action rather than a worst-case scenario.

The new scenario framework provides a more realistic range. The baseline "no additional climate policy" scenarios now generally track closer to 3C of warming by 2100 rather than the 4-5C from RCP8.5.

The basic physics of CO2 and warming remains the same. We're still on track for 2.5-3C warming under current policies.

The scenario update makes the science more credible. It's correcting an overuse issue that climate scientists themselves identified.

Characterizing this as evidence of a scam misses that science is supposed to refine its tools when problems are identified. That's the process working, not evidence it was fraudulent.

The numbers are wrong and will continue to be wrong, because the baseline assumptions (and don't we all know how to spell that?) have been wrong the entire time.

The "physics" of the matter are total conjecture based upon those flawed baseline numbers, which lead to the flawed outcomes of the computer models....Lest we forget the extremely political nature of "peer review".

Long and the short of the matter is that you warmers still have nothing more substantial than a popcorn fart.

 

[1srelluc]

It IS a religion....Hence, the warmer loons will just carry on as though this never happened.

Yep, and when the vile dems are in charge you get more of the scam and hoops to jump through. Nevermind the "offsets" they use to launder money.

Governor Spanberger Signs Bills to Build Climate Resilience in the Commonwealth

Governor Spanberger Signs Bills to Build Climate Resilience in the Commonwealth

www.edf.org

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh my, another dumb as a post denier. But, since your are a kisser of the orange ass of a child rapist, what else is to be expected. No, the majority of scientists did not expect another ice age in the 70's. In fact, most were worried about the greenhouse effect, but the data and evidence at that point was not great enough to be certain about the warming. By 1981, the evidence was in, and Dr. Hansen published it in an article that made predictions and gave the math.

NASA GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

www.giss.nasa.gov

I don’t consider it just implausible; it was STUPID as it damaged science research for years as many scientists who should know better foolishly followed an obvious false research trail to a dead end, now their credibility declines greatly as they will try to extricate themselves from the pseudoscience mud, they were wallowing in for years knowing it was an absurdity but they have to convince their masters with $$$ they were willing to prostitute to playstation models.

I don’t have a big science degree, yet I saw early on what a pile of baloney it was as it was so far off the mark from the start as the warming trend which was always decoupled from the CO2 changes had no demonstrated relationship with the supposed CO2 as a climate driver when its postulated warm forcing numbers is too small to get out of the statistical noise at the 430 ppm level.

 

[Anomalism]

The numbers are wrong and will continue to be wrong, because the baseline assumptions (and don't we all know how to spell that?) have been wrong the entire time.

The "physics" of the matter are total conjecture based upon those flawed baseline numbers, which lead to the flawed outcomes of the computer models....Lest we forget the extremely political nature of "peer review".

Long and the short of the matter is that you warmers still have nothing more substantial than a popcorn fart.

You're saying the baseline assumptions are wrong, but you haven't said what's actually wrong about them or what the correct baseline should be. "The numbers are wrong" isn't an argument. It's just assertion. What specific physical mechanism or dataset do you think invalidates CO2's radiative forcing properties?

The physics of CO2 absorption isn't conjecture. It's measurable in a lab. Infrared spectroscopy shows CO2 absorbs longwave radiation at specific wavelengths. Satellite measurements confirm less radiation is escaping to space at those exact wavelengths. Surface measurements show more downward radiation at those same wavelengths. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 420ppm. These aren't model outputs. They're direct observations.

Models use those physics to project future warming under different emission scenarios. Yes, the scenarios had problems, which is why they were updated. That's what you're supposed to do when you identify a flaw, fix it and move forward. The alternative is what, exactly? Ignore the problem and keep using RCP8.5? Throw out climate modeling entirely because one set of scenarios was overused?

Peer review is scientists checking each other's math and methodology. If you think it's corrupt, point to a specific paper where the peer review process failed. Show me where reviewers ignored a fatal flaw or rejected sound research for political reasons. Vague accusations about the process don't demonstrate anything.

If the physics are total conjecture.and the models are worthless, why is the warming happening roughly in line with what those supposedly broken models predicted decades ago? Hansen's 1981 projections weren't perfect, but they got the direction and approximate magnitude right. If it was all garbage based on flawed assumptions, we shouldn't be seeing the predicted warming. But we are.

You're claiming everything is wrong without offering an alternative explanation for what we're actually observing. What's your framework? What drives the warming if not CO2?

 

[ding]

The scenario research community has acknowledged this. It's not a secret admission, it's been discussed openly in the literature for years.

Many studies and media reports treated it as what will happen without policy action rather than a worst-case scenario.

The new scenario framework provides a more realistic range. The baseline "no additional climate policy" scenarios now generally track closer to 3C of warming by 2100 rather than the 4-5C from RCP8.5.

The basic physics of CO2 and warming remains the same. We're still on track for 2.5-3C warming under current policies.

The scenario update makes the science more credible. It's correcting an overuse issue that climate scientists themselves identified.

Characterizing this as evidence of a scam misses that science is supposed to refine its tools when problems are identified. That's the process working, not evidence it was fraudulent.

I think their bigger problem is that their climate models run hot. Which is also something they have known about for awhile.

 

[ding]

What drives the warming if not CO2?

The planet naturally returning to its pre-glacial temperature as the northern hemisphere continues to deglaciate. Like it always has in the past. The tipping point for glacial periods is temperature dependent. The planet will continue to warn until the next glacial event is triggered by changing ocean currents which are temperature dependent.

 

[Anomalism]

The planet naturally returning to its pre-glacial temperature as the northern hemisphere continues to deglaciate. Like it always has in the past. The tipping point for glacial periods is temperature dependent. The planet will continue to warn until the next glacial event is triggered by changing ocean currents which are temperature dependent.

View attachment 1253894
View attachment 1253896

How do you reconcile the fact that graphs and other things you point to were created by the same scientists you think are wrong? Is their science valid or not? If not, why cite their measurements?

 

[ding]

How do you reconcile the fact that graphs and other things you point to were created by the same scientists you think are wrong?

I quote Karl Marx when what Karl Marx said was true. I see no reason not to use the same data as everyone else.

Is their science valid or not?

I don't believe so because their science is a flawed computer model that can't history match the most significant climate feature of the last 3 million years. They are ignoring hard data from the geologic record which shows changes in ocean currents affect the northern hemisphere which in turn affects the climate of the planet.

If not, why cite their measurements?

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Anomalism]

I quote Karl Marx when what Karl Marx said was true. I see no reason not to use the same data as everyone else.

I don't believe so because their science is a flawed computer model that can't history match the most significant climate feature of the last 3 million years. They are ignoring hard data from the geologic record which shows changes in ocean currents affect the northern hemisphere which in turn affects the climate of the planet.

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The Karl Marx comparison doesn't work because Marx's statements were philosophical and political arguments, not empirical measurements. When you use ice core data, satellite measurements, or isotope ratios, you're not just using data. You're using the entire methodological framework, instrumentation, calibration procedures, and interpretive context developed by the same scientists whose conclusions you reject. If their methods are so flawed they can't be trusted on causation, why trust them on measurement?

You're citing legitimate concerns about GCM limitations, and those concerns are discussed openly in the climate science literature. The paper you linked raises valid points about internal variability, initial condition sensitivity, and the challenge of attribution. But here's what it doesn't say: that CO2 doesn't cause warming, or that the basic radiative physics are wrong.

The limitations you're describing are about quantifying uncertainty and separating signals in a chaotic system, not about whether the greenhouse effect exists. Models have uncertainty. That's acknowledged. The question is whether that uncertainty is large enough to overturn the basic finding that increased CO2 causes warming.

You mentioned ocean currents affecting climate. Yes, they do, by redistributing heat. But redistribution doesn't explain a net energy increase in the system. What's adding the energy?

Your link shows the legitimate model limitations, but it doesn't invalidate the core physics.

 

[ding]

The Karl Marx comparison doesn't work because Marx's statements were philosophical and political arguments, not empirical measurements.

Sure it does. I use what is true regardless of the source. I don't have to agree with everything they say or believe. I didn't know the geologic record is the domain of the climate scientists (probably because it's not). I would have never have known that because they avoid discussing it like the plague.

When you use ice core data, satellite measurements, or isotope ratios, you're not just using data. You're using the entire methodological framework, instrumentation, calibration procedures, and interpretive context developed by the same scientists whose conclusions you reject. If their methods are so flawed they can't be trusted on causation, why trust them on measurement?

I disagree. None of those things were developed by climate scientists. They were developed by geologists well before any of this nonsense began. That's why I find it credible. It wasn't developed with a bias.

You're citing legitimate concerns about GCM limitations, and those concerns are discussed openly in the climate science literature. The paper you linked raises valid points about internal variability, initial condition sensitivity, and the challenge of attribution. But here's what it doesn't say: that CO2 doesn't cause warming, or that the basic radiative physics are wrong.

It can't history match the largest climate feature of the planet. It can't distinguish between natural causes and manmade causes. It doesn't show any warming from orbital forcing that you claim drives the AMOC. Different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs.

The limitations you're describing are about quantifying uncertainty and separating signals in a chaotic system, not about whether the greenhouse effect exists. Models have uncertainty. That's acknowledged. The question is whether that uncertainty is large enough to overturn the basic finding that increased CO2 causes warming.

I'm not arguing against the GHG effect. I'm arguing with the ridiculous amount of feedback the models pile on because they can't distinguish natural warming. If they could match the glacial cycles then they would know that the planet was still warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature just like it did every other time. I accept that a doubling of CO2 will produce 1C of incremental surface temperature. I do not accept that it will produce anything more than that.

You mentioned ocean currents affecting climate. Yes, they do, by redistributing heat. But redistribution doesn't explain a net energy increase in the system. What's adding the energy?

No energy is being added. Heat is retained or choked on it's journey to outer space. What was it that caused the previous interglacial periods to be 2C warmer than today? It wasn't CO2, right?

Your link shows the legitimate model limitations, but it doesn't invalidate the core physics.

So what? Without being able to history match the largest climate feature of the past 3 million years, their model can't distinguish between natural warming and manmade warming.

 

[Anomalism]

Sure it does. I use what is true regardless of the source. I don't have to agree with everything they say or believe. I didn't know the geologic record is the domain of the climate scientists (probably because it's not). I would have never have known that because they avoid discussing it like the plague.

I disagree. None of those things were developed by climate scientists. They were developed by geologists well before any of this nonsense began. That's why I find it credible. It wasn't developed with a bias.

It can't history match the largest climate feature of the planet. It can't distinguish between natural causes and manmade causes. It doesn't show any warming from orbital forcing that you claim drives the AMOC. Different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs.

I'm not arguing against the GHG effect. I'm arguing with the ridiculous amount of feedback the models pile on because they can't distinguish natural warming. If they could match the glacial cycles then they would know that the planet was still warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature just like it did every other time. I accept that a doubling of CO2 will produce 1C of incremental surface temperature. I do not accept that it will produce anything more than that.

No energy is being added. Heat is retained or choked on it's journey to outer space. What was it that caused the previous interglacial periods to be 2C warmer than today? It wasn't CO2, right?

View attachment 1253920


So what? Without being able to history match the largest climate feature of the past 3 million years, their model can't distinguish between natural warming and manmade warming.

You're shifting between two different claims.

"Models are imperfect at attribution and long-term reconstruction."

"Therefore anthropogenic warming cannot be distinguished from natural warming."

The first is true. The second does not logically follow.

Glacial cycles are primarily triggered by orbital forcing, but the global temperature change from orbital forcing alone is too small to explain the full ice age/interglacial swings. That's why feedbacks matter. CO2 is one of those feedbacks. This is not controversial physics.

And yes, previous interglacials were sometimes warmer than today without human CO2 emissions. That does not demonstrate current warming is natural. Past natural climate changes existed long before humans. The relevant question is whether known natural forcings explain the current warming trend. So far, they do not.

You're invoking the inability to history match glacial cycles as though that invalidates attribution studies. But attribution does not rely solely on GCMs reproducing every paleoclimate transition perfectly. Multiple independent lines of evidence point toward greenhouse forcing. Those are observations, not merely model outputs.

Also, your "1C per doubling" argument is essentially an argument for very low climate sensitivity, not an argument against greenhouse warming itself. But observational constraints, paleoclimate evidence, and energy balance studies generally converge higher than that.

Finally, saying "no energy is being added, heat is merely retained" is just a description of radiative forcing. Retaining more outgoing energy means the climate system accumulates energy until equilibrium is restored. Functionally, that is warming.

 

[ding]

You're shifting between two different claims.

One claim. Many parts.

"Models are imperfect at attribution and long-term reconstruction."

"Therefore anthropogenic warming cannot be distinguished from natural warming."

The first is true. The second does not logically follow.

Can they history match glacial cycles? Because until they can history match the natural variations, they can't distinguish the natural variations from man-made variations.

Glacial cycles are primarily triggered by orbital forcing, but the global temperature change from orbital forcing alone is too small to explain the full ice age/interglacial swings. That's why feedbacks matter. CO2 is one of those feedbacks. This is not controversial physics.

I disagree. You are arguing that in the past - but not today - orbital forcing causes the collapse of the AMOC, but for that to happen, orbital forcing must warm the planet because it is temperature which disrupts THERMOhaline circulation. Are these magic bean orbital forces? They caused previous interglacial periods to warm up and trigger a collapse of the AMOC but are magically silent today?

And yes, previous interglacials were sometimes warmer than today without human CO2 emissions. That does not demonstrate current warming is natural. Past natural climate changes existed long before humans.

The proper way to do this is to use the theoretical warming from CO2 - which is 1C per doubling of CO2 - and subtract that from the total warming to arrive at the natural warming.

The relevant question is whether known natural forcings explain the current warming trend. So far, they do not.

I disagree. You won't know that until they can history match the glacial cycles to understand why previous interglacials warmed more than today.

You're invoking the inability to history match glacial cycles as though that invalidates attribution studies. But attribution does not rely solely on GCMs reproducing every paleoclimate transition perfectly. Multiple independent lines of evidence point toward greenhouse forcing. Those are observations, not merely model outputs.

No. I'm invoking common sense. They are attributing natural warming to feedback that is unrealistic. The entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at warming the surface of the planet to its theoretical incremental surface temperature. Arguing CO2 is 350% effective at delivering its GHG effect at the surface is idiotic.

Also, your "1C per doubling" argument is essentially an argument for very low climate sensitivity, not an argument against greenhouse warming itself. But observational constraints, paleoclimate evidence, and energy balance studies generally converge higher than that.

It's literally the theoretical calculation from simple physics. Based on convection currents it is likely less.

Finally, saying "no energy is being added, heat is merely retained" is just a description of radiative forcing. Retaining more outgoing energy means the climate system accumulates energy until equilibrium is restored. Functionally, that is warming.

No energy is being added. The only source of energy is radiation from the sun that reaches the surface of the planet and earth's blackbody radiation. I don't like the word "retaining." Retaining implies to keep, continue to have, or hold possession of something, often indicating the preservation of a state or position. A better description is choke. Like a nozzle on a water hose chokes the flow of water. But to your point, what the climate community is failing to recognize is the lag time required for the planet to reach it's post glacial equilibrium. As such they are erroneously attributing feedback that is the planet naturally seeking it's post glacial equilibrium. Which it won't be able to do because at some point the AMOC will switch off as the oceans try to equilibrate it's temperature and salinity differences.

 

[Anomalism]

One claim. Many parts.

Can they history match glacial cycles? Because until they can history match the natural variations, they can't distinguish the natural variations from man-made variations.

I disagree. You are arguing that in the past - but not today - orbital forcing causes the collapse of the AMOC, but for that to happen, orbital forcing must warm the planet because it is temperature which disrupts THERMOhaline circulation. Are these magic bean orbital forces? They caused previous interglacial periods to warm up and trigger a collapse of the AMOC but are magically silent today?

The proper way to do this is to use the theoretical warming from CO2 - which is 1C per doubling of CO2 - and subtract that from the total warming to arrive at the natural warming.

I disagree. You won't know that until they can history match the glacial cycles to understand why previous interglacials warmed more than today.

No. I'm invoking common sense. They are attributing natural warming to feedback that is unrealistic. The entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at warming the surface of the planet to its theoretical incremental surface temperature. Arguing CO2 is 350% effective at delivering its GHG effect at the surface is idiotic.

It's literally the theoretical calculation from simple physics. Based on convection currents it is likely less.

No energy is being added. The only source of energy is radiation from the sun that reaches the surface of the planet and earth's blackbody radiation. I don't like the word "retaining." Retaining implies to keep, continue to have, or hold possession of something, often indicating the preservation of a state or position. A better description is choke. Like a nozzle on a water hose chokes the flow of water. But to your point, what the climate community is failing to recognize is the lag time required for the planet to reach it's post glacial equilibrium. As such they are erroneously attributing feedback that is the planet naturally seeking it's post glacial equilibrium. Which it won't be able to do because at some point the AMOC will switch off as the oceans try to equilibrate it's temperature and salinity differences.

Our inability to perfectly reconstruct every paleoclimate transition is not equivalent to an inability to distinguish anthropogenic forcing at all. That standard would invalidate large parts of science, including fields that successfully make attribution statements without perfectly modeling every historical state transition.

You're still collapsing multiple mechanisms into one bucket.

Orbital forcing does not need to strongly increase global annual mean energy to affect glaciation. Its importance is in seasonal and latitudinal distribution, especially northern high latitude summer insolation. Ice sheets are extremely sensitive to whether summer snow survives melt season. Small orbital changes sustained over thousands of years can therefore reorganize the cryosphere and ocean circulation.

The AMOC response is downstream of those changing boundary conditions, not an alternative to them.

Your argument about current orbital forcing actually undermines your equilibrium position. Present orbital configuration trends slightly toward long term cooling, not warming. Yet observed warming is global. If the planet were merely continuing a natural post-glacial recovery, we'd expect warming patterns consistent with known orbital trends. We do not see that.

Your "1C per doubling" figure is not some universally accepted hard upper limit from simple physics. It's roughly the no feedback Planck response. Climate sensitivity includes feedbacks because the climate system demonstrably contains feedback mechanisms.

The debate is about magnitude of feedbacks, not whether feedbacks exist at all.

And the "44% effective vs 350% effective" framing is not how radiative forcing works physically. CO2 is not acting independently of the rest of the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity refers to system response after feedbacks and equilibration, not isolated direct forcing efficiency.

Also your equilibrium argument has a timing problem.

The Holocene was comparatively stable for thousands of years before industrial emissions accelerated. Temperatures did not show a persistent global trend toward some inevitable pre-glacial equilibrium.that suddenly steepened exactly alongside rapid anthropogenic CO2 increase.

If your hypothesis is that modern warming is mostly delayed deglacial recovery, you still need a mechanism explaining why the warming accelerated sharply in the industrial era, why stratospheric cooling accompanies surface warming, why nights warm faster than days, why winters warm faster than summers, and why the oceans are accumulating energy globally while orbital forcing trends weakly negative.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The scenario research community has acknowledged this. It's not a secret admission, it's been discussed openly in the literature for years.

Many studies and media reports treated it as what will happen without policy action rather than a worst-case scenario.

The new scenario framework provides a more realistic range. The baseline "no additional climate policy" scenarios now generally track closer to 3C of warming by 2100 rather than the 4-5C from RCP8.5.

The basic physics of CO2 and warming remains the same. We're still on track for 2.5-3C warming under current policies.

The scenario update makes the science more credible. It's correcting an overuse issue that climate scientists themselves identified.

Characterizing this as evidence of a scam misses that science is supposed to refine its tools when problems are identified. That's the process working, not evidence it was fraudulent.

C02, that stuff that plants breath.

 

[Anomalism]

C02, that stuff that plants breath.

Thank you for your astute contribution, ThunderKiss1965.