Do you feel stupid? It could be catastrophic climate change

[ThunderKiss1965]

Thank you for your astute contribution, ThunderKiss1965.

You not one of those morons that think C02 is a pollutant ?

 

[Anomalism]

You not one of those morons that think C02 is a pollutant ?

Anything can be a pollutant if it's out of balance.

A pollutant is context dependent. Oxygen keeps you alive, but too much oxygen becomes toxic. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients, but excess runoff pollutes waterways. Even water is deadly in excess.

 

[EMH]

Lol

It's hard to take you seriously.

LOL!!!


Translation - CO2 FRAUD cannot refute a word of it, and they've know than for a quarter century.

 

[Anomalism]

LOL!!!


Translation - CO2 FRAUD cannot refute a word of it, and they've know than for a quarter century.

Whatever you say bud.

 

[EMH]

anthropogenic forcing

USMB Alert, new term for Global Warming....



GoogAI

"Anthropogenic forcing refers to human-caused changes in the climate system, primarily driving global warming through increased greenhouse gas emissions"



Except your side has no actual data showing warming outside of Urban Heat Island Effect....




But be warned USMB, you are reading "wordsmithing" by desperate taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars. None of these liars can do anything but toss cards and drive byes. They cannot refute the truth of the actual data, that there is NO WARMING from increasing atmospheric CO2.

 

[EMH]

Whatever you say bud.

If you could, you would.


Truth be told, the "climate scientists" are largely chosen FLOPS from other fields of science, that's why they are so badly outmatched by THE DOCTOR.

 

[Anomalism]

If you could, you would.


Truth be told, the "climate scientists" are largely chosen FLOPS from other fields of science, that's why they are so badly outmatched by THE DOCTOR.

Even the other skeptics here think you're a nut job. That's pretty impressive actually.

 

[EMH]

Even the other skeptics here

Because CO2 FRAUD is 100% pure complete fraud, and was knowingly fraud in 1988 when first launched with plenty of chosen support, CO2 FRAUD has to "create" reasons to "believe it" and the CO2 FRAUD Taxpayer Funded FAUX SKEPTIC

Toddster
Ding
westwall
sunsettommy


is one such reason. They poke fun that the theory is wrong, that it has been wrong all along. But they do NOT want to bust it, to stop it, to shut it down and expose it as fraud, because THEY ARE PART OF THE FRAUD and prove it every time they accept what they know is FUDGE as authentic data.... and "agree" there has been "warming" that actually never existed.

 

[Anomalism]

Because CO2 FRAUD is 100% pure complete fraud, and was knowingly fraud in 1988 when first launched with plenty of chosen support, CO2 FRAUD has to "create" reasons to "believe it" and the CO2 FRAUD Taxpayer Funded FAUX SKEPTIC

Toddster
Ding
westwall
sunsettommy


is one such reason. They poke fun that the theory is wrong, that it has been wrong all along. But they do NOT want to bust it, to stop it, to shut it down and expose it as fraud, because THEY ARE PART OF THE FRAUD and prove it every time they accept what they know is FUDGE as authentic data.... and "agree" there has been "warming" that actually never existed.

ding

westwall

Toddsterpatriot

Sunsettommy

Apparently we're all part of the same conspiracy.

 

[Muhammed]

Horse is out of the barn...The Enviro-fascits will continue to carry on as though doomsday is at our door.

The Global Warming Doomsday Cult still denies climategate. What do you expect from cult members?

 

[Anomalism]

The Global Warming Doomsday Cult still denies climategate. What do you expect from cult members?

What exactly was denied? Be detailed please.

 

[ding]

Our inability to perfectly reconstruct every paleoclimate transition is not equivalent to an inability to distinguish anthropogenic forcing at all.

I disagree. If you can't model how the planet warmed up during interglacial periods then you don't understand the drivers of natural warming. And if you can't distinguish that then you can't distinguish what man is contributing other than using the theoretical values from simple physics calculations. Their error is in the feedbacks.

You're still collapsing multiple mechanisms into one bucket.

I'm not. Feel free to show how I am. I can't make a more simple argument than to say if the northern hemisphere is glaciating the planet is cooling. If the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the planet is warming. Feel free to disagree with those statements. The reason why the northern hemisphere does one or the other depends on if heat is being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't. Everything else is a feedback. Also feel free to disagree with this and still explain how your orbital forcing theory doesn't use the collapse and restoration of the AMOC.

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.

So ocean currents are responsible for the northern hemisphere glaciating and deglaciating?

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

That's like arguing the gun store is responsible for murder instead of the dude that pulled the trigger. The AMOC switching on and off is the root cause of glaciation or deglaciation. Temperature is responsible for AMOC switching on or off.

Your argument about current orbital forcing actually undermines your equilibrium position.

I don't see how? The data shows we are still 2C away from AMOC switch off if we base it on the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.

Present orbital configuration trends slightly toward long term cooling, not warming.

By your logic, orbital forcing isn't responsible for AMOC switch off because it is no longer capable of warming the ocean to affect density changes. So by your logic, we skipped a glacial period.

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.

That's not my logic. I believe orbital forcing is a red herring. What I expect is for the planet to continue to naturally warm until the AMOC collapses. I'm happy to agree that 120 ppm of incremental CO2 has added 0.22C to 0.5C of man-made warming though.

Your "1C per doubling" figure is not some universally accepted hard upper limit from simple physics.

It's theoretical value that is well known in the climate community. I think the IPCC may use 1.25 C instead though.

It's roughly the no feedback Planck response. Climate sensitivity includes feedbacks because the climate system demonstrably contains feedback mechanisms.

Yes, no feedback and also no loss in efficiency which undoubtably there will be. SLoT. The problem with feedbacks is the death spiral effect.

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

Given the complexity of clouds, precipitation and evaporative cooling, I say there is a question. Remember... the planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2 and greater.

And the "44% effective vs 350% effective" framing is not how radiative forcing works physically.

Didn't say it did. This has to do with convective currents whisking heat away from the surface. Lest we not forget this debate is about surface temperatures.

CO2 is not acting independently of the rest of the atmosphere.

Agreed. The overall GHG signature of the atmosphere look like the water vapor signature curve.

Climate sensitivity refers to system response after feedbacks and equilibration, not isolated direct forcing efficiency.

Didn't say it did. My point has to do with convective currents whisking heat away from the surface. Lest we not forget this debate is about surface temperatures.

As to climate sensitivity, given the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm, the climate doesn't seem to be that sensitive to CO2.

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.

Comparatively stable? Says you. Ice cores say otherwise.

And the fact remains that this has been a relatively cool interglacial period, even with an extra 120 ppm of CO2.

If your hypothesis is that modern warming is mostly delayed deglacial recovery,

No. My hypothesis is that the planet is still warming. You associate all of that warming to an incremental 120 ppm of CO2. I only associate a fraction (20-30%) to CO2.

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.

Actually I don't. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends in interglacial periods.

But what you need to remember is that the current warming trend began 400 years ago at the end of the little ice age. Well before you can blame man for that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ding

westwall

Toddsterpatriot

Sunsettommy

Apparently we're all part of the same conspiracy.

EMH has survived 18 Mossad attempts on his life already.

He doesn't have any time to also write posts that make sense.

 

[ding]

ding

westwall

Toddsterpatriot

Sunsettommy

Apparently we're all part of the same conspiracy.

I'm pretty sure he gets his science from social media feeds.

 

[EMH]

ding

westwall

Toddsterpatriot

Sunsettommy

Apparently we're all part of the same conspiracy.

and the same demographic....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and the same demographic....

And they're all out to get you.

A nutty guy in the basement with a bunch of cats.

 

[EMH]

And they're all out to get you.

A nutty guy in the basement with a bunch of cats.

The KGB and the SS both spied on Judaism independently.

They came to an identical conclusion, that Judaism isn't a religion, it is a conspiracy against everyone else.

CO2 FRAUD is another terrific documentation of that truth.... right down to Mossad enforcing it, and the lion's share of the $20 trillion stolen from the American taxpayer ending up in Chosen pockets...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The KGB and the SS both spied on Judaism independently.

They came to an identical conclusion, that Judaism isn't a religion, it is a conspiracy against everyone else.

CO2 FRAUD is another terrific documentation of that truth.... right down to Mossad enforcing it, and the lion's share of the $20 trillion stolen from the American taxpayer ending up in Chosen pockets...

 

[Oddball]

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?

And all you do is appeal to the presumed infallibility of people whose dire predictions have NEVER EVER come to pass....And when they're found to be lacking of results and in error, they've become masters of moving the goalposts.

One of your archbishops, as quoted in the East Anglia emails....

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.

Pal review is GIGO...It's all political....Tell the "peers" what they want to hear, or you don't get published.

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.

But it isn't....See the above direct quote.

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?

The alternative explanations are more than likely naturally occurring...But accepting that doesn't keep the gubmint grant loot rolling in for the "research", so they all get poo-pooed by the "experts".

 

[Anomalism]

I disagree. If you can't model how the planet warmed up during interglacial periods then you don't understand the drivers of natural warming. And if you can't distinguish that then you can't distinguish what man is contributing other than using the theoretical values from simple physics calculations. Their error is in the feedbacks.

That argument only works if attribution depends entirely on perfectly modeling paleoclimate transitions. It doesn’t. Current anthropogenic warming is identified through multiple independent observations.

I'm not. Feel free to show how I am. I can't make a more simple argument than to say if the northern hemisphere is glaciating the planet is cooling. If the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the planet is warming. Feel free to disagree with those statements. The reason why the northern hemisphere does one or the other depends on if heat is being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't. Everything else is a feedback. Also feel free to disagree with this and still explain how your orbital forcing theory doesn't use the collapse and restoration of the AMOC.

The disagreement is over causality hierarchy.
In the mainstream framework, AMOC changes are a major internal feedback and amplifier, but not the long term pacemaker. Orbital forcing changes high latitude summer insolation first, which alters ice sheet stability; AMOC then responds within that changing climate state and can greatly amplify or accelerate transitions.

So ocean currents are responsible for the northern hemisphere glaciating and deglaciating?

They are part of the mechanism.

The disagreement is whether ocean circulation is the primary independent driver of the glacial cycle, or whether orbital forcing first alters high latitude summer insolation and ice-sheet stability, with ocean circulation then amplifying and propagating those changes through the climate system.

That's like arguing the gun store is responsible for murder instead of the dude that pulled the trigger. The AMOC switching on and off is the root cause of glaciation or deglaciation. Temperature is responsible for AMOC switching on or off.

That analogy only works if AMOC changes are fully self initiating and independent. The mainstream argument is that AMOC is a powerful mechanism that responds to broader boundary conditions.

Nobody denies AMOC changes can strongly drive glaciation/deglaciation dynamics once triggered. The disagreement is over what repeatedly pushes the system toward those AMOC state changes on orbital timescales instead of the circulation behaving more irregularly or randomly.

I don't see how? The data shows we are still 2C away from AMOC switch off if we base it on the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.

The “2C away from AMOC collapse” idea isn’t a reliable metric. AMOC stability depends on regional salinity, freshwater input, wind patterns, and density structure in the North Atlantic, not just global average temperature compared to past interglacials.

Past warm interglacials don’t directly tell you how close we are to a threshold today. Orbital forcing being weak now doesn’t change that; it just means current changes are being driven mainly by greenhouse gases rather than orbital cycles.

By your logic, orbital forcing isn't responsible for AMOC switch off because it is no longer capable of warming the ocean to affect density changes. So by your logic, we skipped a glacial period.

Orbital forcing refers to a very slow long term trend, not the current short term energy balance. Right now, greenhouse gases dominate and are driving warming despite a slight orbital tendency toward cooling.

I'm not skipping anything. Different forcings operate on different timescales, and the current state is an interglacial being modified by a much faster, stronger forcing.

That's not my logic. I believe orbital forcing is a red herring. What I expect is for the planet to continue to naturally warm until the AMOC collapses. I'm happy to agree that 120 ppm of incremental CO2 has added 0.22C to 0.5C of man-made warming though.

Global warming can’t be explained by AMOC changes alone because AMOC mainly redistributes heat regionally in the Atlantic, not increase total planetary energy.

What we observe instead is a measured positive energy imbalance and rising ocean heat content, which requires a net external forcing. AMOC can shape where warming shows up, but it doesn’t account for the global increase in stored heat.

It's theoretical value that is well known in the climate community. I think the IPCC may use 1.25 C instead though.

The 1–1.2C per CO2 doubling number is not a hard physical limit. It’s the no-feedback baseline from radiative transfer physics.

The higher IPCC range comes from adding feedbacks, which are where most of the uncertainty and disagreement actually sits.

Yes, no feedback and also no loss in efficiency which undoubtably there will be. SLoT. The problem with feedbacks is the death spiral effect.

The 1–1.2C per doubling is the physics only baseline from radiative transfer.

Feedbacks are real and expected, and the second law doesn’t prevent them; it just ensures the system balances overall energy. The real uncertainty is how strong net feedbacks are, not whether they exist or cause instability.

Given the complexity of clouds, precipitation and evaporative cooling, I say there is a question. Remember... the planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2 and greater.

Clouds and water vapor are the main uncertainty in feedback strength, but they’re constrained by observations and paleoclimate data.

Past periods with higher CO2 were cooler because climate is also driven by other factors like geography, oceans, and long-term changes in greenhouse gases, not CO2 alone.

Didn't say it did. This has to do with convective currents whisking heat away from the surface. Lest we not forget this debate is about surface temperatures.

Convection doesn’t cancel greenhouse forcing; it just moves heat around within the atmosphere. CO2 reduces outgoing radiation to space, creating an energy imbalance. The system warms until balance is restored, and convection is part of that process, not a way around it.

Agreed. The overall GHG signature of the atmosphere look like the water vapor signature curve.
View attachment 1253964

Didn't say it did. My point has to do with convective currents whisking heat away from the surface. Lest we not forget this debate is about surface temperatures.

Convection doesn’t reduce climate sensitivity in the way you’re implying. It just redistributes energy vertically and horizontally while the system is still constrained by the top of atmosphere energy balance set by radiative physics. Surface temperature ends up higher because the whole column must warm enough to restore outgoing infrared radiation.

The “CO2 was higher and Earth was cooler” argument doesn’t isolate CO2 as the control variable. Those periods also had very different continents, ocean circulation, ice states, and long-term carbon cycle conditions.

Comparatively stable? Says you. Ice cores say otherwise.
View attachment 1253965
And the fact remains that this has been a relatively cool interglacial period, even with an extra 120 ppm of CO2.

Ice cores actually do show the Holocene as relatively stable compared to glacial periods. Variability exists, but nothing like the large, global, sustained swings of ice age transitions.

Actually I don't. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends in interglacial periods.

But what you need to remember is that the current warming trend began 400 years ago at the end of the little ice age. Well before you can blame man for that.
View attachment 1253968

Yes, warming started after the Little Ice Age, but that early rise was small and likely driven by natural factors.

Sharp, sustained global acceleration in the mid–late 20th century lines up with greenhouse gas increases and shows patterns that aren’t explained by the earlier natural recovery or orbital forcing.