The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[ding]

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.

Glacial cycles and D-O events say otherwise.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

That’s true at the regional scale. Redistribution by currents and ocean heat transport sets local climate patterns, seasonal extremes, and continental anomalies. The Arctic, Europe, or North America can warm or cool depending on where that energy flows.

What it doesn’t do is create or erase the global energy imbalance. Currents move heat around. They shift the thermostat locally, but the long term, planet-wide warming trend we see over the last century comes from energy being added to the system by greenhouse gases. Redistribution shapes the where and how, not the why of global warming.

 

[Anomalism]

Glacial cycles and D-O events say otherwise.

You’re conflating triggers and amplifiers with ultimate forcing...again.

Dansgaard Oeschger events and glacial interglacial swings are regional or hemispheric phenomena superimposed on slow background changes like orbital forcing. They can produce rapid local shifts, but the global energy budget shows that these abrupt events are amplifications of existing conditions, not independent creators of sustained, planet wide warming like what anthropogenic CO2 is doing today.

In other words, D O events explain how fast ice sheets and local climates can respond, not why the entire Earth is accumulating heat over decades. The modern trend requires an external energy input, not just redistribution or internal variability.

 

[ding]

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.

Whereas I believe they don't understand the natural processes well enough to prove that claim. I believe the planet is still naturally warming from the last glacial cycle and that they are incorrrectly attributing that warming to CO2 and that's why they are calculating such ridiculous feedback.

Do you understand my position? Because I understand your position.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

You cant change ocean currents. You cant control the weather. You cant control the sun. We can control the economic disaster called renewable energy before it creates an energy shortage catstrophe

 

[ding]

You’re conflating triggers and amplifiers with ultimate forcing...again.

Dansgaard Oeschger events and glacial interglacial swings are regional or hemispheric phenomena superimposed on slow background changes like orbital forcing. They can produce rapid local shifts, but the global energy budget shows that these abrupt events are amplifications of existing conditions, not independent creators of sustained, planet wide warming like what anthropogenic CO2 is doing today.

In other words, D O events explain how fast ice sheets and local climates can respond, not why the entire Earth is accumulating heat over decades. The modern trend requires an external energy input, not just redistribution or internal variability.

I'm not and I'm beginning to think you couldn't accurately state my position to save your life.

 

[Anomalism]

Whereas I believe they don't understand the natural processes well enough to prove that claim. I believe the planet is still naturally warming from the last glacial cycle and that they are incorrrectly attributing that warming to CO2 and that's why they are calculating such ridiculous feedback.

Do you understand my position? Because I understand your position.

Yes, I understand your position. You see modern warming as a continuation of the natural post glacial recovery, with oceans and ice albedo feedbacks driving the planet back toward interglacial temperatures. You’re framing CO2 as secondary or negligible, and you think climate scientists are overestimating its effect because they misattribute natural warming to anthropogenic forcing.

I also understand my position. The observed post 1950 global warming is far faster, globally uniform, and quantitatively tied to greenhouse gas increases. Detection and attribution studies explicitly account for natural variability, including glacial residuals and oceanic reorganizations. When you remove anthropogenic CO2 from the models, the modern warming disappears. This is falsifiable and reproducible. Natural recovery alone cannot explain the magnitude, speed, or global extent of what we see today.

 

[ding]

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.

So it makes perfect sense that the largest feature on the planet, that is the planet's largest collector of solar energy would drive abrupt climate changes because of the planet's unique landmass distribution in the northern hemisphere which has effectively configured the planet for colder temperatures.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm not and I'm beginning to think you couldn't accurately state my position to save your life.

Actually, I just did. Your position is that modern warming is a continuation of natural post glacial recovery, with oceans and ice albedo feedbacks driving it, and that CO2 is secondary. Right now, you’re avoiding engaging with the science you’re critiquing

 

[ding]

Yes, I understand your position. You see modern warming as a continuation of the natural post glacial recovery, with oceans and ice albedo feedbacks driving the planet back toward interglacial temperatures. You’re framing CO2 as secondary or negligible, and you think climate scientists are overestimating its effect because they misattribute natural warming to anthropogenic forcing.

I also understand my position. The observed post 1950 global warming is far faster, globally uniform, and quantitatively tied to greenhouse gas increases. Detection and attribution studies explicitly account for natural variability, including glacial residuals and oceanic reorganizations. When you remove anthropogenic CO2 from the models, the modern warming disappears. This is falsifiable and reproducible. Natural recovery alone cannot explain the magnitude, speed, or global extent of what we see today.

All good so far. What about my position on what is driving the climate of the planet and why?

 

[ding]

Actually, I just did. Your position is that modern warming is a continuation of natural post glacial recovery, with oceans and ice albedo feedbacks driving it, and that CO2 is secondary. Right now, you’re avoiding engaging with the science you’re critiquing

Then maybe stop arguing I am conflating things when I am not.

 

[Anomalism]

So it makes perfect sense that the largest feature on the planet, that is the planet's largest collector of solar energy would drive abrupt climate changes because of the planet's unique landmass distribution in the northern hemisphere which has effectively configured the planet for colder temperatures.

Yes, the ocean dominates the thermal mass, and yes, its interaction with the northern continents shapes abrupt regional events. That doesn’t change the fact that these are redistribution effects on top of a baseline energy budget. They move energy, they don’t add it. The sustained global warming trend over the last century is quantitatively tied to the net radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Abrupt events may modulate local climates, but they don’t generate the multi decadal, planet wide increase we observe. Redistribution isn’t creation.

 

[Anomalism]

All good so far. What about my position on what is driving the climate of the planet and why?

Then maybe stop arguing I am conflating things when I am not.

Your position, as I understand it, is that the climate of the planet is primarily driven by the oceans redistributing heat, with northern hemisphere landmass and ice configuration setting the stage for abrupt regional climate events. You see these ocean ice land interactions as the dominant control, with atmospheric CO2 playing a minor or secondary role. I get that you’re distinguishing redistribution from forcing, but the point I keep returning to is that redistribution alone cannot create the sustained, planet-wide warming trend we’ve observed over the last century. That trend requires an external energy input, which the evidence shows is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

[ding]

That doesn’t change the fact that these are redistribution effects on top of a baseline energy budget.

It does if it is not well understood and is being attributed to feedback from CO2.

They move energy, they don’t add it.

Neither does CO2. GHG's act as a choke. They don't create energy.

The sustained global warming trend over the last century is quantitatively tied to the net radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Or from the planet naturally warming back up to its baseline pre-glacial temperature.

Abrupt events may modulate local climates, but they don’t generate the multi decadal, planet wide increase we observe.

I didn't say they did. You are conflating my argument for what drives abrupt climate changes with what is causing the warming today. I don't see this warming trend - which began 400 years ago as abrupt. I see it as ordinary and natural. Abrupt is what will happen when the AMOC switches off and then back on again. Those will be abrupt and undeniable.

Redistribution isn’t creation.

I never said or implied that it was. Both the atmosphere and ocean store and redistribute heat, right? Neither of which are creating heat.

 

[Anomalism]

It does if it is not well understood and is being attributed to feedback from CO2.

Neither does CO2. GHG's act as a choke. They don't create energy.


Or from the planet naturally warming back up to its baseline pre-glacial temperature.


I didn't say they did. You are conflating my argument for what drives abrupt climate changes with what is causing the warming today. I don't see this warming trend - which began 400 years ago as abrupt. I see it as ordinary and natural. Abrupt is what will happen when the AMOC switches off and then back on again. Those will be abrupt and undeniable.


I never said or implied that it was. Both the atmosphere and ocean store and redistribute heat, right? Neither of which are creating heat.

Yes, both the oceans and atmosphere store and move heat, but that doesn’t generate a sustained global energy increase. Redistribution shifts where energy shows up regionally. It can make some places colder, others warmer, but it cannot create the long term global trend. The planet is still gaining energy overall, and that net gain comes from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not internal circulation or storage. You’re describing the mechanics of movement, not the cause of the warming.

 

[ding]

Your position, as I understand it, is that the climate of the planet is primarily driven by the oceans redistributing heat, with northern hemisphere landmass and ice configuration setting the stage for abrupt regional climate events. You see these ocean ice land interactions as the dominant control, with atmospheric CO2 playing a minor or secondary role. I get that you’re distinguishing redistribution from forcing,

I don't see how anyone can see it differently for the period before the industrial revolution. It's literally the dominant climate feature of the planet for the past 3 million years. This should be the starting point.

but the point I keep returning to is that redistribution alone cannot create the sustained, planet-wide warming trend we’ve observed over the last century. That trend requires an external energy input, which the evidence shows is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

This is where we disagree. Until we understand the natural processes we can't rule out natural processes. I'm perfectly fine with including the direct radiative forcing of CO2 though.

 

[Anomalism]

I don't see how anyone can see it differently for the period before the industrial revolution. It's literally the dominant climate feature of the planet for the past 3 million years. This should be the starting point.


This is where we disagree. Until we understand the natural processes we can't rule out natural processes. I'm perfectly fine with including the direct radiative forcing of CO2 though.

The natural processes you’re describing are included in climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. Scientists don’t ignore them; they explicitly quantify their effects and then isolate what additional warming is required to match the observed post 1950 trend. That’s where anthropogenic CO2 comes in. It’s reasonable to include its direct radiative effect, but it’s also clear from multiple independent lines of evidence that natural processes alone cannot reproduce the speed, magnitude, or global uniformity of modern warming.

 

[ding]

Yes, both the oceans and atmosphere store and move heat, but that doesn’t generate a sustained global energy increase.

Never said it did. I said the oceans are responsible for abrupt climate changes. I don't believe the warming trend of the last 400 years is an abrupt climate change.

Redistribution shifts where energy shows up regionally.

Yes and depending upon the location can cause abrupt climate changes that have global impacts. I don't believe the warming trend of the last 400 years is an abrupt climate change.

It can make some places colder, others warmer, but it cannot create the long term global trend.

Glacial cycles and D-O events say otherwise.

The planet is still gaining energy overall, and that net gain comes from anthropogenic greenhouse gases,

I disagree. Again... Until we understand the natural processes we can't rule out natural processes. I'm perfectly fine with including the direct radiative forcing of CO2 though.

not internal circulation or storage. You’re describing the mechanics of movement, not the cause of the warming.

What was the cause of warming for the past interglacial periods? Because they all seem to warm to close to the same temperature which is 2C warmer than today?

 

[ding]

The natural processes you’re describing are included in climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. Scientists don’t ignore them;

Until they can history match glacial cycles (which include interglacial periods) they are effectively ignoring them.

they explicitly quantify their effects and then isolate what additional warming is required to match the observed post 1950 trend. That’s where anthropogenic CO2 comes in. It’s reasonable to include its direct radiative effect, but it’s also clear from multiple independent lines of evidence that natural processes alone cannot reproduce the speed, magnitude, or global uniformity of modern warming.

Until they can history match the natural processes they have no business trying to model anthropogenic effects on natural processes.

 

[Anomalism]

Never said it did. I said the oceans are responsible for abrupt climate changes. I don't believe the warming trend of the last 400 years is an abrupt climate change.

Yes and depending upon the location can cause abrupt climate changes that have global impacts. I don't believe the warming trend of the last 400 years is an abrupt climate change.

Glacial cycles and D-O events say otherwise.

I disagree. Again... Until we understand the natural processes we can't rule out natural processes. I'm perfectly fine with including the direct radiative forcing of CO2 though.

What was the cause of warming for the past interglacial periods? Because they all seem to warm to close to the same temperature which is 2C warmer than today?

Past interglacial periods warmed primarily due to orbital forcing. The Milankovitch cycles, which gradually altered the distribution of solar radiation. That slow, natural forcing set the stage for ice sheet retreat, ocean circulation adjustments, and greenhouse gas feedbacks that amplified the warming. The pace of those changes unfolded over millennia, not decades.

The key difference with modern warming is speed and origin: the past required orbital shifts plus slow feedbacks, whereas the post industrial warming occurs over a century and is driven by an external energy input, anthropogenic CO2. The fact that past interglacials reached similar temperatures doesn’t mean today’s trend is natural; the mechanisms and timescales are completely different. Detection and attribution studies quantify these differences, and without human CO2, the observed 20th–21st century warming cannot be reproduced.