The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[ding]

Abrupt ocean circulation changes, volcanic eruptions, or ice sheet collapses can cause regional or short term anomalies, but they cannot account for the sustained, planet wide warming observed over the last century.

I didn't say they did. What we are witnessing is the long lived event of the planet returning to its post glacial temperature. Which will continue to happen until the next glacial period is triggered... like it always has for the past 3 million years.

It seems that your belief is that absent anthropogentic CO2 the planet would stay at it's present temperature indefinitely. That just isn't the case. LOOK AT THE DATA.

Absent anthropogenic CO2 the planet would continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

 

[ding]

Attribution studies explicitly separate natural variability, including ocean driven events, from anthropogenic forcing. Counterfactual simulations that remove greenhouse gas increases fail to reproduce the observed post 1950 warming. That’s the core of detection science. Oceans redistribute heat, but they don’t create it. The modern trend exists because energy is being added to the system from an external source, human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, not because of internal ocean variability alone.

Until they can model and history match the natural processes, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic effects have on those natural processes.

 

[ding]

If you want abrupt events, the past shows they are punctuated and regional, not sustained and global.

Extensive Northern hemisphere continental glaciation affects the climate of the planet (oceans and atmosphere). It's not merely a regional event. It's literally the thing that has been driving the climate of the planet for the last 3 million years. It's the 800# gorilla in the room. And until they can history match that, they have no business modeling the impact that CO2 would have on those processes.

 

[Anomalism]

I didn't say they did. What we are witnessing is the long lived event of the planet returning to its post glacial temperature. Which will continue to happen until the next glacial period is triggered... like it always has for the past 3 million years.

It seems that your belief is that absent anthropogentic CO2 the planet would stay at it's present temperature indefinitely. That just isn't the case. LOOK AT THE DATA.

Absent anthropogenic CO2 the planet would continue doing this for the foreseeable future.
View attachment 1217945

Your argument ignores the timescales involved. Post glacial warming unfolds over thousands of years, paced by orbital changes and natural feedbacks. The past century’s warming is occurring orders of magnitude faster, with a global fingerprint that matches greenhouse gas forcing, not residual glacial recovery. Climate models run counterfactuals without anthropogenic CO2 and fail to reproduce the observed 20th–21st century warming. This isn’t speculation, it’s a reproducible result grounded in physics and paleoclimate validation. The planet wouldn’t stay at a fixed temperature indefinitely, but it also wouldn’t warm nearly as fast as it has without the CO2 humans have added.

 

[ding]

The oceans are part of the conveyor belt that spreads energy, but they aren’t the power plant. Saying “it’s all ocean-driven” ignores the energy budget and the falsifiable evidence that removing greenhouse forcing eliminates the trend.

How much more heat does the ocean contain than the atmosphere?

 

[Anomalism]

Until they can model and history match the natural processes, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic effects have on those natural processes.

Extensive Northern hemisphere continental glaciation affects the climate of the planet (oceans and atmosphere). It's not merely a regional event. It's literally the thing that has been driving the climate of the planet for the last 3 million years. It's the 800# gorilla in the room. And until they can history match that, they have no business modeling the impact that CO2 would have on those processes.

Modeling and history matching natural processes is exactly what climate scientists do. Detection and attribution studies don’t ignore glaciation, ocean circulation, or other natural forcings, they explicitly include them in the counterfactuals. The reason modern warming still appears only when anthropogenic CO2 is included is because the data and physics demand it. You’re framing it as if scientists skipped the ‘800# gorilla’ when in reality, they’ve rigorously quantified its effect, and it doesn’t explain the rapid, global, post 1950 warming. Dismissing that is not science; it’s hand waving.

 

[ding]

You’re still mixing scales, and it's starting to seem like it's intentional, not just ignorance. The Atlantic Arctic disruption is a regional, proximate trigger; it doesn’t create the global energy imbalance. Albedo feedback amplifies the local response, but the global climate system’s temperature is set by integrated forcings, including greenhouse gases. Your event explains a regional pulse, not the long term global trend we see in the paleoclimate record or today. Trigger versus background forcing remains a key distinction.

I'm explaining to you what is driving the climate of the planet. Over the last 3 million years what has been the planet's largest climate feature? Is it northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation?

 

[ding]

Your argument ignores the timescales involved. Post glacial warming unfolds over thousands of years, paced by orbital changes and natural feedbacks. The past century’s warming is occurring orders of magnitude faster, with a global fingerprint that matches greenhouse gas forcing, not residual glacial recovery. Climate models run counterfactuals without anthropogenic CO2 and fail to reproduce the observed 20th–21st century warming. This isn’t speculation, it’s a reproducible result grounded in physics and paleoclimate validation. The planet wouldn’t stay at a fixed temperature indefinitely, but it also wouldn’t warm nearly as fast as it has without the CO2 humans have added.

No. My argument doesn't ignore timescales at all. Over the last 3 million years is it accurate to say that when the northern hemisphere is glaciating the planet cools? And when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the planet warms? Isn't that what the data from the last 3 million years shows?

 

[ding]

Modeling and history matching natural processes is exactly what climate scientists do. Detection and attribution studies don’t ignore glaciation, ocean circulation, or other natural forcings, they explicitly include them in the counterfactuals. The reason modern warming still appears only when anthropogenic CO2 is included is because the data and physics demand it. You’re framing it as if scientists skipped the ‘800# gorilla’ when in reality, they’ve rigorously quantified its effect, and it doesn’t explain the rapid, global, post 1950 warming. Dismissing that is not science; it’s hand waving.

Until they can model and history match the natural processes, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic effects have on those natural processes.

 

[Anomalism]

How much more heat does the ocean contain than the atmosphere?

I'm explaining to you what is driving the climate of the planet. Over the last 3 million years what has been the planet's largest climate feature? Is it northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation?

View attachment 1217949

View attachment 1217950

Yes, the oceans store far more heat than the atmosphere, roughly 1,000 times more, but storage ≠ generation. They redistribute energy; they don’t create the global forcing. Northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation have certainly shaped the climate over millions of years, but the reason modern warming is exceptional isn’t that ice sheets stopped moving. It’s that an external, rapidly increasing forcing is now dominating the global energy budget. Glacial cycles set the background rhythm; they don’t negate the physics of greenhouse forcing or the falsifiable results of attribution studies. Trigger versus forcing remains the key distinction, and the oceans only transmit, they don’t invent, the energy causing the trend we see today.

 

[Anomalism]

No. My argument doesn't ignore timescales at all. Over the last 3 million years is it accurate to say that when the northern hemisphere is glaciating the planet cools? And when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the planet warms? Isn't that what the data from the last 3 million years shows?

Until they can model and history match the natural processes, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic effects have on those natural processes.

Yes, over the last 3 million years, northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation have correlated with planetary cooling and warming. That doesn’t contradict modern detection science. It’s precisely the baseline those models account for. Climate scientists explicitly simulate glacial cycles, ice sheet changes, volcanic forcing, and ocean circulation in their counterfactuals. The point isn’t that these natural processes are ignored. It’s that they cannot reproduce the post 1950 warming trend. Removing anthropogenic CO2 from models eliminates the rapid global signal, even with glacial and oceanic processes included. Claiming scientists can’t model natural processes ignores the fact that they already have, and it’s exactly that modeling which demonstrates human emissions are now the dominant forcing.

 

[ding]

Yes, the oceans store far more heat than the atmosphere, roughly 1,000 times more

Great. Now how much more mass does the ocean have than the atmosphere?

 

[Hafar1014]

Yes, the oceans store far more heat than the atmosphere, roughly 1,000 times more, but storage ≠ generation. They redistribute energy; they don’t create the global forcing. Northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation have certainly shaped the climate over millions of years, but the reason modern warming is exceptional isn’t that ice sheets stopped moving. It’s that an external, rapidly increasing forcing is now dominating the global energy budget. Glacial cycles set the background rhythm; they don’t negate the physics of greenhouse forcing or the falsifiable results of attribution studies. Trigger versus forcing remains the key distinction, and the oceans only transmit, they don’t invent, the energy causing the trend we see today.

The sun creates climate end of story let me know when you can control that

 

[ding]

They redistribute energy; they don’t create the global forcing.

So the ocean distributing heat (which BTW is because of uneven heating) doesn't establish climate? Because I believe it does. If you alter the currents, then you alter the heat circulation and you change the climate. If heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic were disrupted it would get much colder in the norther latitudes, right? And because there so much land in the northern latitudes those lands would glaciate, right? And doesn't the data show that when that happens the entire planet cools?

So how is that not the ocean affecting the climate of the planet by affecting the climate of the northern hemisphere?

 

[Hafar1014]

So the ocean distributing heat (which BTW is because of uneven heating) doesn't establish climate? Because I believe it does. If you alter the currents, then you alter the heat circulation and you change the climate. If heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic were disrupted it would get much colder in the norther latitudes, right? And because there so much land in the northern latitudes those lands would glaciate, right? And doesn't the data show that when that happens the entire planet cools?

So how is that not the ocean affecting the climate of the planet by affecting the climate of the northern hemisphere?

All climate is created by the sun After the sun effects the oceans we have el nina and el nino that does effct climate

 

[ding]

Yes, over the last 3 million years, northern hemisphere glaciation and deglaciation have correlated with planetary cooling and warming.

So what you are saying is that the climate in one region ( a special region that receives the least sunlight, is mostly thermally isolated from warm marine currents and has surrounding land for glaciers to spread) can affect planetary temperatures. And that when the northern hemisphere glaciates, the planet cools. And when the northern hemisphere deglaciates, the planet warms.

So how can you tell how much CO2 is affecting the planet without first history matching the data from when the northern hemisphere caused the planet to warm? Because I think that process is still going on and you guys are dismissing it and attributing it to CO2.

 

[Anomalism]

Great. Now how much more mass does the ocean have than the atmosphere?

So the ocean distributing heat (which BTW is because of uneven heating) doesn't establish climate? Because I believe it does. If you alter the currents, then you alter the heat circulation and you change the climate. If heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic were disrupted it would get much colder in the norther latitudes, right? And because there so much land in the northern latitudes those lands would glaciate, right? And doesn't the data show that when that happens the entire planet cools?

So how is that not the ocean affecting the climate of the planet by affecting the climate of the northern hemisphere?

Yes, the ocean has vastly more mass than the atmospheres, and it contains far more heat. That doesn’t make it the source of energy; it’s a storage and redistribution system. Altering currents can absolutely shift regional climate patterns, like cooling the Arctic or northern continents, but that’s still a redistribution of existing energy, not creation of a sustained global imbalance. The long term global trend we observe today is set by net energy entering the Earth system, primarily from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not by internal circulation changes. Currents modulate where heat goes; they don’t explain why the planet as a whole is warming.

 

[ding]

Yes, the ocean has vastly more mass than the atmospheres, and it contains far more heat. That doesn’t make it the source of energy; it’s a storage and redistribution system. Altering currents can absolutely shift regional climate patterns, like cooling the Arctic or northern continents, but that’s still a redistribution of existing energy, not creation of a sustained global imbalance. The long term global trend we observe today is set by net energy entering the Earth system, primarily from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not by internal circulation changes. Currents modulate where heat goes; they don’t explain why the planet as a whole is warming.

Does this massive amount of heat stored in the ocean affect climate depending upon how and where the heat is circulated from and to?

 

[ding]

Yes, the ocean has vastly more mass than the atmospheres, and it contains far more heat. That doesn’t make it the source of energy; it’s a storage and redistribution system. Altering currents can absolutely shift regional climate patterns, like cooling the Arctic or northern continents,

I never said or implied otherwise. The sun is the source of all heat (other than the earth's core that is). The ocean is the largest collector of solar energy. The storage and redistribution of that heat is what establishes climate. Change how the heat is redistributed, then you change climates. Which is literally what I have been arguing.

 

[Anomalism]

Does this massive amount of heat stored in the ocean affect climate depending upon how and where the heat is circulated from and to?

Absolutely. The oceans are the planet’s thermal flywheel. They store vast amounts of heat and redistribute it across latitudes and depths. Where that heat goes affects regional climates: if warm water is transported northward, the Arctic and surrounding continents moderate; if it’s blocked or diverted, those regions can cool. Currents shape patterns of climate and extreme events, but they don’t create or destroy energy. The long term global warming signal comes from an external energy imbalance. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases adding heat to the system, not from the redistribution itself. Currents move the energy around; they don’t generate the trend.