Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Old Rocks]

The Vostok ice core shows that over the last ~400,000 years, CO2 and temperature rise and fall together in tight lockstep across multiple glacial cycles.

Temperature begins rising first by a few hundred years during deglaciations due to orbital forcing, but then CO2 rises and strongly amplifies the warming through the greenhouse effect. That confirms that CO2 acts as a powerful feedback and global amplifier of temperature change.

The physics doesn’t depend on what caused CO2 to rise; once it’s in the atmosphere, it traps infrared radiation. In the past, temperature nudged CO2 first; today humans are injecting CO2 directly, but the same amplification mechanism applies.

Vostok demonstrates that CO2 is not a bystander, it’s one of the main control knobs of Earth’s climate.

Of course Walleyes will insist that he knows more than the scientists at the AGU. But anyone reading his posts realizes he is a shill for the fossil fuel interests and deals in their lies. Yes, CO2 is the biggest control knob;

 

[westwall]

View attachment 1219152

Computer model.....

DURRRRRR

 

[Anomalism]

Computer model.....

DURRRRRR

You skipped my last post. You done? I'll reiterate if you want

 

[westwall]

You skipped my last post. You done? I'll reiterate if you want

What post, didn't see it, but you're just posting the same circular argument, so I would probably ignore it anyway.

 

[Anomalism]

The Vostok lag does not refute CO2 forcing; it confirms it. Yes, CO2 lags temperature by ~500-800 years at the start of deglaciations because the initial trigger was orbital (Milankovitch cycles).

That small warming caused the oceans to outgas CO2. But once CO2 rose, it amplified and sustained the warming globally, which is why temperature and CO2 remain tightly locked for tens of thousands of years and why the total warming is far larger than orbital forcing alone can explain.

Orbital cycles start the change, CO2 multiplies it. Today humans are injecting CO2 directly, so we’re skipping the orbital trigger and going straight to the amplifier. The lag doesn’t disprove greenhouse physics. It’s one of the strongest empirical demonstrations that CO2 is a powerful climate control knob.

This conversation is an even better demonstration of how little you actually understand this topic.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that caused warming during past climate changes, notably as a feedback amplifying other factors - Science Feedback

Because of the physics of the transfer of electromagnetic radiation, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, meaning that temperatures must increase as the concentration of CO2 increases. This is true whether natural factors initiate warming (as in many past climate changes) and the release of CO2, or the...

science.feedback.org

RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? Quelle information sur le réchauffement climatique nous apportent les études qui concluent à un retard du CO2 sur la température, réalisées à partir d

RealClimate: This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during...

www.realclimate.org

How Do Ice Cores Show Climate Change? – The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

iere.org

westwall

This one.

 

[westwall]

westwall

This one.

I did respond to that post. It's a lie. The reality is the core data shows that CO2 increases 500 to 800 years AFTER the global temperatures increase.

Over and over and over over a period of 800,000 years.

So, did you lie intentionally, or did you not know the true facts?

 

[Anomalism]

I did respond to that post. It's a lie. The reality is the core data shows that CO2 increases 500 to 800 years AFTER the global temperatures increase.

Over and over and over over a period of 800,000 years.

So, did you lie intentionally, or did you not know the true facts?

You’re misunderstanding the Vostok data. Yes, CO2 rises 500-800 years after the initial warming at the start of deglaciations, but that’s because orbital changes triggered the first temperature increase.

That initial warming caused oceans to release CO2, which then amplified and sustained the global temperature rise. After that point, CO2 and temperature remain tightly coupled for tens of thousands of years, exactly what greenhouse physics predicts.

The lag doesn’t refute CO2’s role; it demonstrates it as a powerful climate feedback and control knob, not a bystander. You’re conflating the trigger of warming with the mechanism that drives and amplifies it.

 

[westwall]

You’re misunderstanding the Vostok data. Yes, CO2 rises 500-800 years after the initial warming at the start of deglaciations, but that’s because orbital changes triggered the first temperature increase.

That initial warming caused oceans to release CO2, which then amplified and sustained the global temperature rise. After that point, CO2 and temperature remain tightly coupled for tens of thousands of years, exactly what greenhouse physics predicts.

The lag doesn’t refute CO2’s role; it demonstrates it as a powerful climate feedback and control knob, not a bystander. You’re conflating the trigger of warming with the mechanism that drives and amplifies it.

There's no such thing as amplification. That is a ridiculous unsupported claim that only exists in computer models.

It's real simple, the oceans are the reservoir of CO2. When the global temperature rises, the CO2 is released from the warmer ocean waters.

This is supported by ACTUAL scientific experimentation, not computer derived fiction.

 

[toobfreak]

The southern hemisphere is experiencing record heat and massive wild fires in the present La Nina. In the meantime, here in the West, we have a major deficit of snow and the long range forecast is for an El Nino this fall.

Gee, it sure sucks everywhere you live. Remind me never to move in next to you.

Hey Rocky, BTW, if there is global climate change caused by people and everyone agrees to that, then why hasn't no one stopped it yet? Tell me, what did Joe Biden and the democrats do for it? I mean, other than yell: Climate Change! Elect me! Elect me!

 

[Anomalism]

There's no such thing as amplification. That a ridiculous unsupported claim that only exists in computer models.

It's real simple, the oceans are the reservoir of CO2. When the global temperature rises, the CO2 is released from the warmer ocean waters.

This is supported by ACTUAL scientific experimentation, not computer derived fiction.

That’s exactly what amplification means in this context. You just described it without realizing it.

When the oceans warm, they release CO2, which increases the atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 traps more infrared radiation, which further warms the climate, which can cause more CO2 to outgas. That positive feedback loop isn’t a computer model invention. It’s directly observed in paleoclimate records, in lab measurements of ocean-atmosphere gas exchange, and in the radiative physics of CO2.

The Vostok ice cores, modern ocean flux studies, and satellite measurements all confirm that this process exists in the real world, not just in simulations.

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 1219152

LOL, it is a temperature chart nothing more, where is the CO2 effect.......

 

[westwall]

That’s exactly what amplification means in this context. You just described it without realizing it.

When the oceans warm, they release CO2, which increases the atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 traps more infrared radiation, which further warms the climate, which can cause more CO2 to outgas. That positive feedback loop isn’t a computer model invention. It’s directly observed in paleoclimate records, in lab measurements of ocean-atmosphere gas exchange, and in the radiative physics of CO2.

The Vostok ice cores, modern ocean flux studies, and satellite measurements all confirm that this process exists in the real world, not just in simulations.

No, that isn't amplification. That is the simple release of gases according to the Ideal Gas Laws.

 

[1srelluc]

You are about a stupid ass. If your house is in the path of those fires, you definitely care. But, like most MAGAts, you think that kind of thing only happens to other people.

Triggered much?

 

[toobfreak]

That’s exactly what amplification means in this context. The Vostok ice cores, modern ocean flux studies, and satellite measurements all confirm that this process exists in the real world, not just in simulations.

You know, I just have to say as an outsider to "climate science" but one who knows how to interpret data:

1. If MMCC is real, how tragic that you believers really suck so bad at being able to prove it! At best, you put up dubious data then "interpret" it for us telling us it spells doom.
2. You portend to interpret hundreds of thousands of years of conclusions based on a mere 50 years of data collection of a highly variable system.
3. Despite this massive global consensus, I don't see any of you people actually doing anything to save the planet. At best, every proposal I've seen out there to "save" the planet, the solution is far more damaging to humanity than the actual problem.
4. I watch people like you zig zag all over, like first claiming that CO2 levels preceded warming by 500-800 years then conceding the exact opposite. Fact is that if the Earth warmed long ago due to any number of reasons, that warming provided more food and energy for more plant growth, then that increase in plant growth caused more output of CO2 as a result, not a cause, so even if there is some correlation between warmth and CO2, the connection, cause and order of the events is arguable at best.

What would impress me would be if you took two bell jars, created a micro climate under each one, identical in every way except one had 10 ppm of CO2 more than the other, then under identical conditions, the one with a little more CO2 shot up in temperature and went all to hell.

And of course, there is always the OTHER conclusion, that maybe the Earth fluctuates in CO2 and temp all over the place all the time as part of its natural cycle and that the Earth is doing nothing different or more unusual right now than it should be doing?

 

[Anomalism]

No, that isn't amplification. That is the simple release of gases according to the Ideal Gas Laws.

No, that’s not what the ideal gas law describes, and this is exactly where you’re mixing categories.

The ideal gas law (PV = nRT) tells you how a gas behaves given a temperature and pressure; it does not describe radiative physics, energy balance, or feedback loops. What you’re calling simple release is Henry’s Law,, which explains why warming oceans outgas CO2.

Amplification is what happens after that: the extra CO2 increases infrared absorption in the atmosphere, which reduces outgoing longwave radiation, increasing net energy in the climate system, causing further warming. That additional warming then drives more outgassing. That closed loop. Temperature > CO2 > radiative forcing > more temperature.

That's literally the textbook definition of a positive feedback. You just described step one (outgassing) and pretended steps two and three (radiative forcing and energy accumulation) don’t exist, which is stopping the causal chain halfway because it’s inconvenient.

 

[Anomalism]

You know, I just have to say as an outsider to "climate science" but one who knows how to interpret data:

1. If MMCC is real, how tragic that you believers really suck so bad at being able to prove it! At best, you put up dubious data then "interpret" it for us telling us it spells doom.
2. You portend to interpret hundreds of thousands of years of conclusions based on a mere 50 years of data collection of a highly variable system.
3. Despite this massive global consensus, I don't see any of you people actually doing anything to save the planet. At best, every proposal I've seen out there to "save" the planet, the solution is far more damaging to humanity than the actual problem.
4. I watch people like you zig zag all over, like first claiming that CO2 levels preceded warming by 500-800 years then conceding the exact opposite. Fact is that if the Earth warmed long ago due to any number of reasons, that warming provided more food and energy for more plant growth, then that increase in plant growth caused more output of CO2 as a result, not a cause, so even if there is some correlation between warmth and CO2, the connection, cause and order of the events is arguable at best.

What would impress me would be if you took two bell jars, created a micro climate under each one, identical in every way except one had 10 ppm of CO2 more than the other, then under identical conditions, the one with a little more CO2 shot up in temperature and went all to hell.

And of course, there is always the OTHER conclusion, that maybe the Earth fluctuates in CO2 and temp all over the place all the time as part of its natural cycle and that the Earth is doing nothing different or more unusual right now than it should be doing?

You’re treating climate like a courtroom drama where the only acceptable evidence is a single, cute, tabletop demo, and everything else is interpretation. That’s not how physics works, and it’s not how any complex system has ever been understood.

First, the bell jar experiment you propose already exists, in real life, at planetary scale. It’s called Earth. We have lab spectroscopy showing CO2 absorption bands, we have satellite spectra showing reduced outgoing IR exactly at those bands, and we have energy accumulation measured in oceans. That's the controlled experiment: same planet, same Sun, same physics, only the atmospheric composition is changing. The signal matches the mechanism.

Second, the Vostok point. Nobody zig-zagged. The position has been consistent for decades: orbital cycles triggered initial warming, CO2 lagged, then amplified it. That’s a two-stage causal chain. Trigger ≠ amplifier. You’re insisting that if CO2 wasn’t the first domino, it can’t be part of the mechanism at all, which is inaccurate.

Third, the “50 years of data” claim is just wrong.

We have...

Instrumental data (150 years),
Ice cores (800,000 years),
Marine sediments (millions of years),
Paleoclimate proxies (tens of millions of years)

All telling the same story about radiative gases and temperature. The short modern record isn’t standing alone; it’s sitting on top of a deep geological archive.

Fourth, the “maybe it’s just natural cycles” argument collapses quantitatively. Natural forcings are all measured. None of them produce a sustained positive energy imbalance today. CO2 does, and we can literally measure the imbalance. That energy is showing up exactly where physics predicts: oceans first, atmosphere second, ice last.

And finally, the policy rant is a category error. Whether people propose dumb solutions has zero bearing on whether the underlying physics is real. Bad politics doesn’t falsify thermodynamics.

Climate science is strong because it has multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same mechanism. What you’re actually reacting to isn’t lack of evidence, it’s discomfort with the implications. And that’s a psychological problem, not a scientific one.

 

[westwall]

You’re treating climate like a courtroom drama where the only acceptable evidence is a single, cute, tabletop demo, and everything else is interpretation. That’s not how physics works, and it’s not how any complex system has ever been understood.

First, the bell jar experiment you propose already exists, in real life, at planetary scale. It’s called Earth. We have lab spectroscopy showing CO2 absorption bands, we have satellite spectra showing reduced outgoing IR exactly at those bands, and we have energy accumulation measured in oceans. That's the controlled experiment: same planet, same Sun, same physics, only the atmospheric composition is changing. The signal matches the mechanism.

Second, the Vostok point. Nobody zig-zagged. The position has been consistent for decades: orbital cycles triggered initial warming, CO2 lagged, then amplified it. That’s a two-stage causal chain. Trigger ≠ amplifier. You’re insisting that if CO2 wasn’t the first domino, it can’t be part of the mechanism at all, which is inaccurate.

Third, the “50 years of data” claim is just wrong.

We have...

Instrumental data (150 years),
Ice cores (800,000 years),
Marine sediments (millions of years),
Paleoclimate proxies (tens of millions of years)

All telling the same story about radiative gases and temperature. The short modern record isn’t standing alone; it’s sitting on top of a deep geological archive.

Fourth, the “maybe it’s just natural cycles” argument collapses quantitatively. Natural forcings are all measured. None of them produce a sustained positive energy imbalance today. CO2 does, and we can literally measure the imbalance. That energy is showing up exactly where physics predicts: oceans first, atmosphere second, ice last.

And finally, the policy rant is a category error. Whether people propose dumb solutions has zero bearing on whether the underlying physics is real. Bad politics doesn’t falsify thermodynamics.

Climate science is strong because it has multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same mechanism. What you’re actually reacting to isn’t lack of evidence, it’s discomfort with the implications. And that’s a psychological problem, not a scientific one.

We have zero evidence that man causes any impact on climate. None. All you have are climate models of known poor quality.

There is NO empirical data to support a single claim that you have made.

The historical record is our support for our claim that everything we are seeing is natural variability.

And that historical record is very clear, unlike your claims that the climate is getting worse, the reality is the opposite.

The climate over the last half century has been the most stable over the last three centuries.

We also know that when the climate is warmer all life on the planet does better, especially human life. This too is unarguable thanks to the historical record, there are major advances in civilization every time it's warm, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, all times of great advances in human culture, and between those periods of warmth, we have the loss of civilization as the cold wreaks havoc.

That too is well documented in the historical record.

So ...you present computer derived fiction, and we present 3,000 years of historical records.

 

[Anomalism]

We have zero evidence that man causes any impact on climate. None. All you have are climate models of known poor quality.

There is NO empirical data to support a single claim that you have made.

The historical record is our support for our claim that everything we are seeing is natural variability.

And that historical record is very clear, unlike your claims that the climate is getting worse, the reality is the opposite.

The climate over the last half century has been the most stable over the last three centuries.

We also know that when the climate is warmer all life on the planet does better, especially human life. This too is unarguable thanks to the historical record, there are major advances in civilization every time it's warm, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, all times of great advances in human culture, and between those periods of warmth, we have the loss of civilization as the cold wreaks havoc.

That too is well documented in the historical record.

So ...you present computer derived fiction, and we present 3,000 years of historical records.

It's not just models, and I've already shown you that at your own request. You've also been flat wrong about basic science that's not even limited to the climate, more than once. You claim to be a scientist, but you don't understand basic dynamics. Something isn't adding up.

 

[westwall]

It's not just models, and I've already shown you that at your own request. You've also been flat wrong about basic science that's not even limited to climate change more than once. You claim to be a scientist, but you don't understand basic dynamics. Something isn't adding up.

Yes, it is just models. That's all. The fraud is now so extensive that climatologists no longer even try to present real evidence.

I understand the basics quite well, you're the one claiming heat can DOWN, into the water column even though there is no way for that heat to even penetrate the skin of the water.

Your claims are based on fantasy, while I am following simple physics.

It's obvious that you are nothing more than a parrot. You have no degree in a scientific specialty, that is clear. You are an expert at tossing out every bit of verbiage that the climate fraudsters have posted on their websites.

But let's cut to the chase, what do you propose to "bring climate under control"?

 

[toobfreak]

You’re treating climate like a courtroom drama where the only acceptable evidence is a single, cute, tabletop demo, and everything else is interpretation.

In other words, you are admitting to not being able to show even one clear correlation that amply demonstrates the climate problem in any convincing way? Then follow that up with the argument that: "You just have to know how to interpret a million little facts and put it all together, and trust us lady, we know how to do that and you don't?"

We have...
Instrumental data (150 years),
Ice cores (800,000 years),
Marine sediments (millions of years),
Paleoclimate proxies (tens of millions of years)

And all those data studies from thousands and millions of years ago all show that the Earth was doing the same things long before we came along, is doing it now, and will still be doing it long after we are gone. It shows that carbon is a natural, inescapable consequence of life and living and that you cannot easily do away with one without harming the other, so, like it or lump it, we either dramatically curtail living by getting rid of billions of people, go back to the Stone Age, or continue to work on the problem as technology allows to gradually become a cleaner and greener society naturally.

So, it all really comes down to practical solutions, and all I ever hear from you people is talk, diagrams and panic, but I don't hear you offering any reasonable solutions.