Record heat in the southern hemisphere in a La Nina

[Anomalism]

I'm conflating nothing. In 70 years, I've yet to ever see any weather which was not within normal variation.


Fine, then show me a century of climate outside normal variation, show me a decade then. Just a few hundred years ago they had a mini ice age. Before that, they had the medieval warming. None of this can be linked to human activity. It is all part of normal variation. 8200 years ago, we had another freak cooling period; I seriously doubt the Mastodons were responsible for that. Nothing going on now is even up to that standard, so I'll ask again:

Get back to me when you have proof of your theories; right now, they're nothing more than that. I started out more of a space scientist, but it all ties together. Normal variation on this planet includes going from a snowball earth to palm trees at the south pole, so please don't sit there trying to tell me now that a few melting glaciers or a bout with an extra hot, dry summer is proof of the end of the world and reason why I need to go back to living like it was 1840 again.

Still, fine if we can naturally transition to cleaner energy. No harm, no foul. I figure we should accomplish that over the next 150 years. If we can crack the cold fusion problem, or any fusion at all, that will be a big head start.

You’re right that Earth has always experienced natural climate variability over centuries and millennia. The key distinction now is rate and cause. Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record, and the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity is the primary driver. That doesn’t mean the planet is ending tomorrow or that humans need to live like it’s 1840; it just means that natural variability is now compounded by anthropogenic forcing. Also, fusion would indeed be a game changer.

 

[toobfreak]

The key distinction now is rate and cause.

Then you are in trouble, because you've failed to prove either.

Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record

But the instruments have only been around for 50 years. And earlier changes can only be inferred from the geologic record.

, and the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity is the primary driver.

So you say.

That doesn’t mean the planet is ending tomorrow or that humans need to live like it’s 1840; it just means that natural variability is now compounded by anthropogenic forcing.

But since we have no previous experience with nor former record of "anthropogenic forcing," this is all conjecture derived from theory.

 

[Anomalism]

Then you are in trouble, because you've failed to prove either.


But the instruments have only been around for 50 years. And earlier changes can only be inferred from the geologic record.


So you say.


But since we have no previous experience with nor former record of "anthropogenic forcing," this is all conjecture derived from theory.

You’re suggesting that anything not directly witnessed by modern humans is just conjecture, which would invalidate most of astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology overnight. We don’t need prior experience with anthropogenic forcing to test it. CO2's radiative properties are measured in labs; its atmospheric concentration is measured directly, its isotopic signature fingerprints fossil fuels, and the resulting energy imbalance is observed by satellites and oceans. That’s multiple independent measurements lining up with physical laws. Paleoclimate proxies aren’t guesses either; they’re calibrated against modern observations and consistently reproduce known past events. So this isn’t “we imagine humans affect climate,” it’s “we measure a forcing, we measure its source, and we measure its effects in real time.” Dismissing all of that as conjecture would also require dismissing plate tectonics, stellar evolution, and half of modern science.

 

[toobfreak]

You’re suggesting that anything not directly witnessed by modern humans is just conjecture

I'm suggesting nothing. Don't put words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that having not seen anthropogenic change before, we have no basis of comparison, so must by necessity infer what it might look like since it has never happened before.

It is bad science to just find a core sample in ice where the CO2 PPM or whatever was the same and infer from that our situation must therefore be similar and thus, will follow a similar pattern.

For instance, the Earth has actually been cooler than it is now these past 3 million years until about 10,000 years ago; the problem with comparing recent history with the geologic record is that you lose resolution with time, so lose the ability to see short-term events farther back in time.

The other problem is for a model to be accurate today, it should be able to tell us why the Earth has been both much warmer and cooler, with higher and lower CO2 in the past, all without man as a factor?

That leads to the question of, if the temp and CO2 did this or worse before without need of man, how can we be sure it is happening NOW because of man?

 

[Anomalism]

I'm suggesting nothing. Don't put words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that having not seen anthropogenic change before, we have no basis of comparison, so must by necessity infer what it might look like since it has never happened before.

It is bad science to just find a core sample in ice where the CO2 PPM or whatever was the same and infer from that our situation must therefore be similar and thus, will follow a similar pattern.

For instance, the Earth has actually been cooler than it is now these past 3 million years until about 10,000 years ago; the problem with comparing recent history with the geologic record is that you lose resolution with time, so lose the ability to see short-term events farther back in time.

The other problem is for a model to be accurate today, it should be able to tell us why the Earth has been both much warmer and cooler, with higher and lower CO2 in the past, all without man as a factor?

That leads to the question of, if the temp and CO2 did this or worse before without need of man, how can we be sure it is happening NOW because of man?

You’re mixing up “we haven’t seen this exact cause before” with “we have no way to test it.” We don’t need a prior human run experiment for anthropogenic forcing because the climate system only responds to physical mechanisms we already understand: greenhouse gases, solar input, albedo, and energy balance. Those same mechanisms explain past warm and cold periods without humans, and models reproduce those when you include the correct natural forcings. When you run the same models for the modern period without human emissions, they fail to match observed warming; when you include measured CO2 from fossil fuels, they match. That’s attribution.

The fact that CO2 and temperature changed naturally in the past doesn’t argue against human causation now. It’s exactly what establishes the causal link. It shows that CO2 is an effective climate driver. What’s unprecedented today is not the mechanism, but the rate and source: CO2 is rising faster than in ice core records, and we can directly measure that it’s coming from fossil carbon. Same physics, new forcing.

 

[westwall]

You’re right that Earth has always experienced natural climate variability over centuries and millennia. The key distinction now is rate and cause. Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record, and the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity is the primary driver. That doesn’t mean the planet is ending tomorrow or that humans need to live like it’s 1840; it just means that natural variability is now compounded by anthropogenic forcing. Also, fusion would indeed be a game changer.

The rate is nothing, as I said, the climate now is the most stable in three centuries. ESPECIALLY the last 50 years.

And there is no empirical evidence as to cause, no matter how desperately you try and blame humanity.

 

[westwall]

You’re suggesting that anything not directly witnessed by modern humans is just conjecture, which would invalidate most of astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology overnight. We don’t need prior experience with anthropogenic forcing to test it. CO2's radiative properties are measured in labs; its atmospheric concentration is measured directly, its isotopic signature fingerprints fossil fuels, and the resulting energy imbalance is observed by satellites and oceans. That’s multiple independent measurements lining up with physical laws. Paleoclimate proxies aren’t guesses either; they’re calibrated against modern observations and consistently reproduce known past events. So this isn’t “we imagine humans affect climate,” it’s “we measure a forcing, we measure its source, and we measure its effects in real time.” Dismissing all of that as conjecture would also require dismissing plate tectonics, stellar evolution, and half of modern science.

Anything NOT MEASURABLE, EMPIRICALLY, isn't real.

 

[westwall]

You’re mixing up “we haven’t seen this exact cause before” with “we have no way to test it.” We don’t need a prior human run experiment for anthropogenic forcing because the climate system only responds to physical mechanisms we already understand: greenhouse gases, solar input, albedo, and energy balance. Those same mechanisms explain past warm and cold periods without humans, and models reproduce those when you include the correct natural forcings. When you run the same models for the modern period without human emissions, they fail to match observed warming; when you include measured CO2 from fossil fuels, they match. That’s attribution.

The fact that CO2 and temperature changed naturally in the past doesn’t argue against human causation now. It’s exactly what establishes the causal link. It shows that CO2 is an effective climate driver. What’s unprecedented today is not the mechanism, but the rate and source: CO2 is rising faster than in ice core records, and we can directly measure that it’s coming from fossil carbon. Same physics, new forcing.

Yes, it does. Humanity is responsible for less than 5% of the yearly global CO2 production.

The claim that it is that last 5% that is bad...is absurd.

 

[Anomalism]

Anything NOT MEASURABLE, EMPIRICALLY, isn't real.

It is measurable. You just don't understand the mechanisms.

 

[westwall]

It is measurable. You just don't understand the mechanisms.

Then show a link to a measurement that hasn't been massaged by a computer model.

Go!

 

[Anomalism]

Then show a link to a measurement that hasn't been massaged by a computer model.

Go!

I already did that, at your request, and you ignored it. You're not actually open to learning.

 

[westwall]

I already did that, at your request, and you ignored it. You're not actually open to learning.

No, you provided a link to the CO2 from Muana Loa. Which has nothing to do with your claim.

 

[Anomalism]

No, you provided a link to the CO2 from Muana Loa. Which has nothing to do with your claim.

You asked for raw measurements that confirm what's being said without models. I gave you exactly that. In fact, I believe I gave you three or four examples. I linked you to the raw data, and you ignored it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’re right that Earth has always experienced natural climate variability over centuries and millennia. The key distinction now is rate and cause. Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record, and the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity is the primary driver. That doesn’t mean the planet is ending tomorrow or that humans need to live like it’s 1840; it just means that natural variability is now compounded by anthropogenic forcing. Also, fusion would indeed be a game changer.

Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record,

Faster than in the past 150 years? Wow!

DURR

 

[Anomalism]

Current warming is happening faster than any of those past variations in the instrumental record,

Faster than in the past 150 years? Wow!

DURR

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or if you actually don't understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or if you actually don't understand.

How far back does the instrumental record extend?

 

[westwall]

You asked for raw measurements that confirm what's being said without models. I gave you exactly that. In fact, I believe I gave you three or four examples. I linked you to the raw data, and you ignored it.

I asked for raw data that supports your AGW claims.

Get it straight, boyo.

 

[toobfreak]

We don’t need a prior human run experiment for anthropogenic forcing because the climate system only responds to physical mechanisms we already understand. Those same mechanisms explain past warm and cold periods without humans, and models reproduce those when you include the correct natural forcings.

Great! Then why do you keep bugging me about it? You just declared you have a perfect understanding of the Earth's climate combined with an exact, reliable model of our climate, so what do you need me for?

I have no preconceived bias regardless of what you think, so I go where the data takes me.

It should be a simple matter for you to sell me on your exact science then. Funny that I've been asking for that simple proof for --years-- and I'm still waiting to be convinced. Just SHOW me the data, don't give me some funky chart then try to tell me what it all means, believe me, I know how to interpret data.

 

[Anomalism]

How far back does the instrumental record extend?

The modern instrumental record goes back about 150-170 years for surface temperature, and about 45 years for full global satellite coverage. That’s short in geological terms, but it’s long enough to directly observe a statistically significant, global, physically coherent trend across independent systems.

Before instruments, we don’t guess. We use proxies, which are calibrated against the instrumental period. That’s how we know past changes happened more slowly and for known natural reasons. The instrumental record is what lets us say: this modern warming is real, global, and cannot be reproduced by natural forcings alone.

 

[Anomalism]

I asked for raw data that supports your AGW claims.

Get it straight, boyo.

Raw data and raw measurements are the same thing. Raw data is the direct output of instruments. That’s exactly what I gave you. What you’re trying to do now is redefine raw to mean “evidence that requires zero interpretation and feels intuitively obvious to me,” which is not a scientific standard.

You're not an honest skeptic. You're also, once again, obviously not a scientist.