It's the Ocean not the Atmosphere, dummy!

[ding]

Models and paleoclimate studies explicitly quantify natural variability, glacial-interglacial cycles, and ocean circulation changes; when you remove anthropogenic CO2 from the system, the modern global warming trend disappears.

Because they don't have the natural processes modeled correctly because they don't understand them well enough to model the largest climate feature of the planet.

 

[ding]

Oceans shape where and how heat is expressed regionally, creating abrupt local changes. They do not explain the global, multidecadal increase in planetary energy we are currently observing. The physical mechanisms you cite, deep water formation, NADW/AABW dynamics, salinity shifts, drive redistribution, not the creation of the energy imbalance that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing today.

You are conflating two different arguments. Today's warming isn't abrupt. It's been going on for 400 years. When I speak of abrupt I am talking about gulf stream switch off which will indeed trigger abrupt changes when it switches off and then switches back on again.

 

[ding]

Your citations beautifully illustrate the mechanics of the ocean conveyor belt and abrupt events, but they support rather than contradict the role of anthropogenic forcing: abrupt changes ride on top of a baseline; the baseline is now climbing because we’ve added energy via greenhouse gases.

Again the issues is with feedback not direct radiative forcing which is an artifact of flawed models that can't history match natural climate variation before the industrial revolution.

 

[Anomalism]

You are saying this wrong. There is no energy input into the system other than what the sun inputs. GHG's act as a choke on heat radiating into outer space by slowing this transfer.

The feedback effects from the northern hemisphere glaciating affect the energy balance such that the earth becomes net cooling because more solar radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere instead of warming the surface of the planet. Just like GHG's choking or retaining heat affect the earth's energy balance by slowing the transfer of heat to outerspace. It's two sides of the same coin.

I don't agree. The planet will continue to warm another 2C naturally before ABRUPTLY triggering the next glacial period.

View attachment 1218017

You’re right about one thing. The Sun is the only external energy source. No one in climate science thinks CO2 creates energy. That’s a strawman.

But this is the part you keep sliding past...

Changing the rate at which energy leaves a system is mathematically identical to adding energy to it.

That’s not rhetoric, that’s thermodynamics. If a system receives 240 W/m2 from the Sun and used to radiate 240 W/m2 back to space, it’s in equilibrium. If you introduce a mechanism that reduces outgoing radiation to 239 W/m2, the system now has a +1 W/m2 energy imbalance. It will warm until outgoing radiation rises again to 240 W/m2.

That is an energy input in the only sense that matters: net flux. Whether you call it adding energy or blocking energy loss is just semantics. A bathtub with the drain partially blocked fills up. You didn’t add more water at the faucet — but the water level still rises. Physics does not care about the metaphor.

 

[ding]

You’re right about one thing. The Sun is the only external energy source. No one in climate science thinks CO2 creates energy. That’s a strawman.

But this is the part you keep sliding past...

How exactly do you believe I have slid past "Changing the rate at which energy leaves a system is mathematically identical to adding energy to it?"

I don't accept their feedback argument because I don't believe the planet is sensitive to CO2 because that would create a death spiral. Warming from CO2 would beget more water vapor which would beget more warming which would beget more CO2 which would beget more warming and so on. The same would be true for the reverse except it would be worse.

I fully understand the concept of net warming and net cooling. I accept the planet is net warming but disagree on the cause. There is tons of data that show the same landmass configuration has naturally warmed more than today.

 

[ding]

That’s not rhetoric, that’s thermodynamics. If a system receives 240 W/m2 from the Sun and used to radiate 240 W/m2 back to space, it’s in equilibrium. If you introduce a mechanism that reduces outgoing radiation to 239 W/m2, the system now has a +1 W/m2 energy imbalance. It will warm until outgoing radiation rises again to 240 W/m2.

No different than when the gulf stream switches off and the northern hemisphere begins to glaciate and the snow/ice cover reflects more solar radiation back into space without warming the surface of the planet produces a net cooling. The sun is shining just the same in all cases.

 

[Anomalism]

How exactly do you believe I have slid past "Changing the rate at which energy leaves a system is mathematically identical to adding energy to it?"

I don't accept their feedback argument because I don't believe the planet is sensitive to CO2 because that would create a death spiral. Warming from CO2 would beget more water vapor which would beget more warming which would beget more CO2 which would beget more warming and so on. The same would be true for the reverse except it would be worse.

I fully understand the concept of net warming and net cooling. I accept the planet is net warming but disagree on the cause. There is tons of data that show the same landmass configuration has naturally warmed more than today.

No different than when the gulf stream switches off and the northern hemisphere begins to glaciate and the snow/ice cover reflects more solar radiation back into space without warming the surface of the planet produces a net cooling. The sun is shining just the same in all cases.

What you just described with the Gulf Stream and ice albedo is a feedback-driven redistribution effect inside the system. It changes how incoming solar energy is partitioned between reflection, atmosphere, and surface, but it does not change the top of atmosphere radiative boundary condition. Ice increases albedo, so more sunlight is reflected and less is absorbed. That’s a negative forcing. Greenhouse gases do the opposite. They leave incoming solar almost unchanged but directly reduce outgoing longwave radiation to space. Those are not the same class of mechanism. One modifies how energy is absorbed; the other modifies how energy escapes. Thermodynamically, they are asymmetric.

And the death spiral argument is just a misunderstanding of feedback math. Positive feedback doesn’t mean runaway to infinity; it means amplification around a stable equilibrium. Every real climate feedback is bounded by physical constraints. Water vapor is limited by saturation curves, clouds introduce both positive and negative effects, and radiation scales as T4T^4T4 which is a massive stabilizer. That’s why Earth didn’t boil in the Cretaceous and didn’t freeze solid in snowball Earth. The system has strong negative Planck feedback that dominates at large scales. CO2 increases sensitivity; it doesn’t remove stability. Claiming feedback implies runaway is like saying microphones always explode into infinite noise. They don’t, they just get louder until the amplifier saturates.

The core error you keep making is this: ocean circulation and ice albedo explain how fast and where climate shifts express. Greenhouse forcing explains why the global mean energy balance moves at all. Past warm periods had different boundary conditions. Today the boundary condition that changed is atmospheric composition. Same equations, different knob being turned. You're arguing about internal gears while ignoring the fact that someone is literally turning the thermostat.

 

[ding]

What you just described with the Gulf Stream and ice albedo is a feedback-driven redistribution effect inside the system. It changes how incoming solar energy is partitioned between reflection, atmosphere, and surface, but it does not change the top of atmosphere radiative boundary condition. Ice increases albedo, so more sunlight is reflected and less is absorbed. That’s a negative forcing. Greenhouse gases do the opposite. They leave incoming solar almost unchanged but directly reduce outgoing longwave radiation to space. Those are not the same class of mechanism. One modifies how energy is absorbed; the other modifies how energy escapes. Thermodynamically, they are asymmetric.

And the death spiral argument is just a misunderstanding of feedback math. Positive feedback doesn’t mean runaway to infinity; it means amplification around a stable equilibrium. Every real climate feedback is bounded by physical constraints. Water vapor is limited by saturation curves, clouds introduce both positive and negative effects, and radiation scales as T4T^4T4 which is a massive stabilizer. That’s why Earth didn’t boil in the Cretaceous and didn’t freeze solid in snowball Earth. The system has strong negative Planck feedback that dominates at large scales. CO2 increases sensitivity; it doesn’t remove stability. Claiming feedback implies runaway is like saying microphones always explode into infinite noise. They don’t, they just get louder until the amplifier saturates.

The core error you keep making is this: ocean circulation and ice albedo explain how fast and where climate shifts express. Greenhouse forcing explains why the global mean energy balance moves at all. Past warm periods had different boundary conditions. Today the boundary condition that changed is atmospheric composition. Same equations, different knob being turned. You're arguing about internal gears while ignoring the fact that someone is literally turning the thermostat.

Yes, I am arguing that the largest feature of the planet which is the largest collector of solar radiation and contains 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere and has 300 times the mass of the atmosphere is driving the climate of the planet.

How do I know? Because the planet wouldn't have cooled for millions of years with elevated levels of CO2 if that were not the case.

 

[ding]

The core error you keep making is this: ocean circulation and ice albedo explain how fast and where climate shifts express. Greenhouse forcing explains why the global mean energy balance moves at all. Past warm periods had different boundary conditions. Today the boundary condition that changed is atmospheric composition. Same equations, different knob being turned. You're arguing about internal gears while ignoring the fact that someone is literally turning the thermostat.

If that were true the planet wouldn't be 2C colder than previous interglacial periods which had 120 ppm less CO2.

 

[Anomalism]

Yes, I am arguing that the largest feature of the planet which is the largest collector of solar radiation and contains 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere and has 300 times the mass of the atmosphere is driving the climate of the planet.

If that were true the planet wouldn't be 2C colder than previous interglacial periods which had 120 ppm less CO2.

The oceans redistribute heat and control regional climate patterns, but they do not generate net warming. They move energy around; they don’t create it. The global energy imbalance we observe today, roughly +1 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, is caused by reduced outgoing longwave radiation from added greenhouse gases, not the oceans. Regarding past interglacials, the fact that today’s climate is 2C cooler than similar periods with 120 ppm less CO2 doesn’t contradict CO2 forcing. It reflects differences in boundary conditions, orbital configurations, ice sheet extent, and greenhouse gas feedbacks. The oceans shape how and where warming appears, but the net increase in planetary energy comes from atmospheric composition changes, not heat redistribution alone.

 

[ding]

The oceans redistribute heat and control regional climate patterns, but they do not generate net warming. They move energy around; they don’t create it. The global energy imbalance we observe today, roughly +1 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, is caused by reduced outgoing longwave radiation from added greenhouse gases, not the oceans. Regarding past interglacials, the fact that today’s climate is 2C cooler than similar periods with 120 ppm less CO2 doesn’t contradict CO2 forcing. It reflects differences in boundary conditions, orbital configurations, ice sheet extent, and greenhouse gas feedbacks. The oceans shape how and where warming appears, but the net increase in planetary energy comes from atmospheric composition changes, not heat redistribution alone.

So when the AMOC switches off it won't be considered a major climate trigger?

 

[Anomalism]

So when the AMOC switches off it won't be considered a major climate trigger?

It would absolutely be considered a major climate trigger, but it’s a regional redistribution effect, not a net addition of energy to the planet. When the AMOC slows or stops, heat transport from the tropics to the north atlantic is altered, which can cause abrupt regional cooling or warming. That doesn’t change the total energy in the Earth system; it just shifts where it’s stored. anthropogenic CO2, in contrast, increases the planet’s net energy by reducing outgoing longwave radiation, so it drives a global warming baseline on top of any circulation-driven fluctuations.

 

[ding]

It would absolutely be considered a major climate trigger, but it’s a regional redistribution effect, not a net addition of energy to the planet. When the AMOC slows or stops, heat transport from the tropics to the north atlantic is altered, which can cause abrupt regional cooling or warming. That doesn’t change the total energy in the Earth system; it just shifts where it’s stored. anthropogenic CO2, in contrast, increases the planet’s net energy by reducing outgoing longwave radiation, so it drives a global warming baseline on top of any circulation-driven fluctuations.

OMG, what part of every major climate change in the last 3 million years was because of what happened in the Arctic do you not understand?

 

[Anomalism]

OMG, what part of every major climate change in the last 3 million years was because of what happened in the Arctic do you not understand?

The arctic and high latitudes have been crucial amplifiers in glacial-interglacial cycles, largely through ice-albedo feedbacks and regional energy redistribution. But that doesn’t change the distinction I’m making: past climate swings were dominated by orbital forcing and internal feedbacks that redistributed energy, whereas today’s net planetary energy increase is driven by added greenhouse gases. The Arctic can amplify or modulate changes, but it doesn’t create the net imbalance that CO2 does; it shapes where warming or cooling appears, not the total energy the planet holds.

 

[ding]

The arctic and high latitudes have been crucial amplifiers in glacial-interglacial cycles, largely through ice-albedo feedbacks and regional energy redistribution. But that doesn’t change the distinction I’m making: past climate swings were dominated by orbital forcing and internal feedbacks that redistributed energy, whereas today’s net planetary energy increase is driven by added greenhouse gases. The Arctic can amplify or modulate changes, but it doesn’t create the net imbalance that CO2 does; it shapes where warming or cooling appears, not the total energy the planet holds.

Glaciation and deglaciation of the Arctic has driven every major abrupt climate change over the last 3 million years. Orbital forcing wasn't the cause. Disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic was.

When extensive continental glaciation occurs in the northern hemisphere like it has over 30 times in the last 3 million years, the planet is net cooling. That is a fact.

 

[Anomalism]

Glaciation and deglaciation of the Arctic has driven every major abrupt climate change over the last 3 million years. Orbital forcing wasn't the cause. Disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic was.

When extensive continental glaciation occurs in the northern hemisphere like it has over 30 times in the last 3 million years, the planet is net cooling. That is a fact.

View attachment 1218085

The distinction here is between regional drivers and global energy balance. Northern hemisphere glaciation certainly changes circulation patterns and local temperatures. It can trigger abrupt regional cooling, but it does so by redistributing energy within the system, not by adding or removing energy from the planet. Orbital forcing sets the stage by changing incoming solar distribution, and feedbacks like ice-albedo amplify the effect. Today, the measured net planetary energy imbalance (+1 W/m2) is caused by reduced outgoing longwave radiation from greenhouse gases. So yes, Arctic ice can modulate climate, but it does not generate the global net warming we are observing, CO2 forcing does.

 

[Oddball]

The distinction here is between regional drivers and global energy balance. Northern hemisphere glaciation certainly changes circulation patterns and local temperatures. It can trigger abrupt regional cooling, but it does so by redistributing energy within the system, not by adding or removing energy from the planet. Orbital forcing sets the stage by changing incoming solar distribution, and feedbacks like ice-albedo amplify the effect. Today, the measured net planetary energy imbalance (+1 W/m2) is caused by reduced outgoing longwave radiation from greenhouse gases. So yes, Arctic ice can modulate climate, but it does not generate the global net warming we are observing, CO2 forcing does.

None of which is physically repeatable on demand or quantifiable.


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

 

[Anomalism]

None of which is physically repeatable on demand or quantifiable.


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it bullshit. The physics are measurable, the energy flows are quantifiable, and the observational record confirms it. Complexity doesn’t equal falsehood.

 

[Stryder50]

Air temperature does change faster than water temperature, but heat will always travel from hotter to colder. Point a blow dryer at a glass of ice. Probably more extreme than you would find in nature, but it adequately demonstrates the principle That's the way it works.

Volume/mass is the major factor.
Point your blow dryer at a ten times ten pound blocks of ice. Then you the relative ratio of water versus air as presented in the OP.

 

[Stryder50]

Getting part way there is progress and is better than .straight extremist denial, due to a political agenda.

The "denial" you imply is of the false claim that it is human generated CO2 increases in ppm that cause atmosphere to heat up and then drives planet surface temperatures to increase.

The extremist political agenda is the false claim of ACC/AGW.