The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[Anomalism]

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

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

You’re insisting on an impossible standard. Models do account for natural processes, including glacial cycles, interglacial periods, orbital forcing, volcanic activity, and ocean circulation. That’s exactly what history matching means in climate science; quantifying those effects and seeing how much warming remains unexplained.

The residual, post 1950 global warming is precisely what is attributed to anthropogenic CO2. Demanding perfect replication of every nuance before considering additional forcings isn’t science. It’s hand waving. Modern warming is faster, global, and quantitatively tied to greenhouse gases, regardless of what happened during previous interglacials.

 

[ding]

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.

Or because heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic resumed. The fact that the peak temperatures are similar should give you pause for concern. It's not an accident. The trigger for glacial periods are temperature dependent. Because thermohaline circulation is temperatures. Which means that the planet will continue to warm another 2C naturally, just like it has in the past before triggering the next glacial period.

 

[ding]

You’re insisting on an impossible standard. Models do account for natural processes, including glacial cycles, interglacial periods, orbital forcing, volcanic activity, and ocean circulation. That’s exactly what history matching means in climate science; quantifying those effects and seeing how much warming remains unexplained.

The residual, post 1950 global warming is precisely what is attributed to anthropogenic CO2. Demanding perfect replication of every nuance before considering additional forcings isn’t science. It’s hand waving. Modern warming is faster, global, and quantitatively tied to greenhouse gases, regardless of what happened during previous interglacials.

If they can't model natural processes then they can't model the affect of anthropogenic effects on natural processes.

 

[Anomalism]

Or because heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic resumed. The fact that the peak temperatures are similar should give you pause for concern. It's not an accident. The trigger for glacial periods are temperature dependent. Because thermohaline circulation is temperatures. Which means that the planet will continue to warm another 2C naturally, just like it has in the past before triggering the next glacial period.

If they can't model natural processes then they can't model the affect of anthropogenic effects on natural processes.

That’s a misunderstanding of what detection and attribution studies do. They don’t need to perfectly model every nuance of glacial cycles or ocean variability to isolate anthropogenic effects. Instead, they include natural forcings and quantify their contribution. Once those are accounted for, the remaining warming is what requires an additional explanation. That residual matches the radiative forcing from human-emitted CO2.

It’s not modeling the effect of CO2 on natural processes in isolation; it’s quantifying the natural baseline first and then showing that natural variability alone cannot produce the observed post 1950 trend. That’s exactly why CO2 is identified as the dominant driver today.

 

[ding]

That’s a misunderstanding of what detection and attribution studies do. They don’t need to perfectly model every nuance of glacial cycles or ocean variability to isolate anthropogenic effects. Instead, they include natural forcings and quantify their contribution. Once those are accounted for, the remaining warming is what requires an additional explanation. That residual matches the radiative forcing from human-emitted CO2.

It’s not modeling the effect of CO2 on natural processes in isolation; it’s quantifying the natural baseline first and then showing that natural variability alone cannot produce the observed post 1950 trend. That’s exactly why CO2 is identified as the dominant driver today.

Let me know when they can history match the largest climate feature of the planet. Until then I'm going to remain skeptical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If they can't model natural processes then they can't model the affect of anthropogenic effects on natural processes.

Haha,so the newest taling point is that they are wrong, because they cant know stuff.

An odd position, since it comes with the tacit assumption that you do know these things in order to know they are wrong.

You people have been rendered intellectually defunct by your irrational denial and backwards think.

By the way, email this guy and try out your pathetic message board act:

Dr Yarrow Axford: axford@northwestern.edu.

Greenland expert

Copy googlymoogly99@yahoo.com

Thanks. I look forward to the hilarity.

 

[Anomalism]

Let me know when they can history match the largest climate feature of the planet. Until then I'm going to remain skeptical.

You’re setting an impossible epistemic standard. Science does not require perfect history matching of the entire paleoclimate system before making causal inferences about a new forcing. That’s not how detection and attribution works in any field.

We don’t need a complete, millennia accurate model of glacial cycles to identify a modern energy imbalance. Those are different problems. Glacial cycles operate on 20,000–100,000 year orbital timescales with ice sheet and ocean feedbacks. The modern warming signal is a post 1950, multidecadal global trend. You test that by including known natural forcings and seeing whether they reproduce the observed energy gain. They don’t. When anthropogenic greenhouse forcing is added, they do. That’s a falsifiable result.

Your standard would invalidate virtually all science.

By your logic, we couldn’t attribute smoking to cancer unless we could perfectly model human biology over evolutionary timescales, or detect inflation unless we could simulate the entire economy. Complex systems are always partially understood; causation is inferred by isolating inputs, outputs, and residuals.

Glacial theory itself is not fully history matched either. Ice sheet dynamics, dust feedbacks, and carbon ocean coupling are still active research areas. Yet you treat glacial cycles as settled when they support your argument, and suddenly demand impossible completeness when CO2 enters the picture.

Understanding natural variability is necessary, and it’s already included. But requiring total explanatory closure of Earth’s entire climate history before accepting modern attribution is not scientific rigor. It’s an immunity doctrine that makes any conclusion unfalsifiable by design.

 

[ding]

Haha,so the newest taling point is that they are wrong, because they cant know stuff.

An odd position, since it comes with the tacit assumption that you do know these things in order to know they are wrong.

You people have been rendered intellectually defunct by your irrational denial and backwards think.

By the way, email this guy and try out your pathetic message board act:

Dr Yarrow Axford: axford@northwestern.edu.

Greenland expert

Copy googlymoogly99@yahoo.com

Thanks. I look forward to the hilarity.

I'll be happy to invite him to the forum and explain the reason for the invitation. I'll let him know that I wasn't the one who posted his email address on an open, anonymous, internet forum.

I'm not giving my email address to you. So I won't be copying you on the email. I'm not going to create a fake email address because you are too chickenshit to email him yourself. So you are just going to have to trust me. That or you can man up and email him yourself.

 

[ding]

You’re setting an impossible epistemic standard.

Failure to match the natural processes means they don't understand the natural processes. They should understand the natural processes before they try to figure out how man is altering the natural processes.

 

[Anomalism]

Failure to match the natural processes means they don't understand the natural processes. They should understand the natural processes before they try to figure out how man is altering the natural processes.

It's very telling that you're choosing to selectively respond to snippets of my posts. Anyway...

Understanding natural processes doesn’t require perfection before you can detect additional influences. Climate science quantifies the natural baseline orbital cycles and then compares observed changes to that baseline. The residual warming is what can’t be explained naturally, and that residual matches the magnitude and timing of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Waiting for a flawless model of every nuance before attributing causes is not science; it’s paralysis by impossibility. You can’t ignore measurable deviations just because the system is complex.

I'm going to call you out directly. You don't know nearly as much as you think/pretend you know, and it's extremely evident now.

 

[ding]

By your logic, we couldn’t attribute smoking to cancer unless we could perfectly model human biology over evolutionary timescales

That's a horrible analogy. First of all people can and do get cancer, including lung cancer, without ever smoking. But more importantly we don't need to model human biology - perfectly, over evolutionary timescales or otherwise - to identify a link between smoking and cancer. We just need empirical evidence. I accept the empirical evidence for direct radiative forcing of CO2. There is no such evidence for climate sensitivity. That is based off of flawed models that can't model natural climate variability. The models cannot distinguish between natural climate variability and feedback from the direct radiative forcing of CO2. The only way that can be done is to first be able to history match natural climate variability absent of man made CO2. Then after calibrating that model, the effects of CO2 can be modeled.

 

[ding]

It's very telling that you're choosing to selectively respond to snippets of my posts. Anyway...

Understanding natural processes doesn’t require perfection before you can detect additional influences. Climate science quantifies the natural baseline orbital cycles and then compares observed changes to that baseline. The residual warming is what can’t be explained naturally, and that residual matches the magnitude and timing of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Waiting for a flawless model of every nuance before attributing causes is not science; it’s paralysis by impossibility. You can’t ignore measurable deviations just because the system is complex.

I'm going to call you out directly. You don't know nearly as much as you think/pretend you know, and it's extremely evident now.

It's more telling that you can't accept I disagree with you for good reasons. Especially since I have already addressed everything you are still saying.

For example... do you know what my answers would be to this post? Have I not already explained to you that I believe they are overestimating the impact of CO2 and why? Do I really need to keep repeating that?

 

[Anomalism]

That's a horrible analogy. First of all people can and do get cancer, including lung cancer, without ever smoking. But more importantly we don't need to model human biology - perfectly, over evolutionary timescales or otherwise - to identify a link between smoking and cancer. We just need empirical evidence. I accept the empirical evidence for direct radiative forcing of CO2. There is no such evidence for climate sensitivity. That is based off of flawed models that can't model natural climate variability. The models cannot distinguish between natural climate variability and feedback from the direct radiative forcing of CO2. The only way that can be done is to first be able to history match natural climate variability absent of man made CO2. Then after calibrating that model, the effects of CO2 can be modeled.

It's more telling that you can't accept I disagree with you for good reasons. Especially since I have already addressed everything you are still saying.

For example... do you know what my answers would be to this post? Have I not already explained to you that I believe they are overestimating the impact of CO2 and why? Do I really need to keep repeating that?

Yes, I get it. You’ve repeated your skepticism and reasoning multiple times. That doesn’t change the fact that your argument hinges on an impossible standard that would disqualify much of known science - perfect modeling of every natural climate process before any attribution is allowed. That’s not how science works, and I think you know it. You can keep insisting that CO2’s effect is overestimated, but the evidence from decades of independent, global measurements, paleoclimate reconstructions, and physics based calculations doesn’t vanish just because you’ve already addressed it in your mind. At some point, acknowledging the limits of your objection doesn’t mean conceding; it means recognizing that your standard for proof is artificially unreachable.

Though, I will note that the position you're trying to take is now "We disagree." Which is a long way from your original tone.

 

[ding]

Yes, I get it. You’ve repeated your skepticism and reasoning multiple times. That doesn’t change the fact that your argument hinges on an impossible standard that would disqualify much of known science - perfect modeling of every natural climate process before any attribution is allowed. That’s not how science works, and I think you know it. You can keep insisting that CO2’s effect is overestimated, but the evidence from decades of independent, global measurements, paleoclimate reconstructions, and physics based calculations doesn’t vanish just because you’ve already addressed it in your mind. At some point, acknowledging the limits of your objection doesn’t mean conceding; it means recognizing that your standard for proof is artificially unreachable.

Though, I will note that the position you're trying to take now is now "We disagree." Which is a long way from your original tone.

I disagree. Ignoring abrupt climate changes like glacial and interglacial periods. Is there natural variability?

 

[ding]

Though, I will note that the position you're trying to take now is now "We disagree." Which is a long way from your original tone.

That's emotion speaking.

 

[Anomalism]

I disagree. Ignoring abrupt climate changes like glacial and interglacial periods. Is there natural variability?

View attachment 1218067

There’s clearly natural variability over the millennia, including abrupt changes during glacial and interglacial periods. That said, highlighting past variability doesn’t negate the current warming trend or the role of CO2. The scale, speed, and global nature of modern warming are very different from these historical swings. Natural variability alone can’t explain the consistent upward trend in global temperatures over the past century, which aligns with rising greenhouse gas concentrations. It’s fine to acknowledge natural fluctuations, but they don’t undermine the overwhelming evidence that human activity is now the dominant driver.

 

[ding]

There’s clearly natural variability over the millennia, including abrupt changes during glacial and interglacial periods. That said, highlighting past variability doesn’t negate the current warming trend or the role of CO2. The scale, speed, and global nature of modern warming are very different from these historical swings. Natural variability alone can’t explain the consistent upward trend in global temperatures over the past century, which aligns with rising greenhouse gas concentrations. It’s fine to acknowledge natural fluctuations, but they don’t undermine the overwhelming evidence that human activity is now the dominant driver.

If you look at the most sensitive region which is the Arctic, it shows climate variation is the norm. There's good reason to question models which says there is no natural climate variability.

 

[Anomalism]

If you look at the most sensitive region which is the Arctic, it shows climate variation is the norm. There's good reason to question models which says there is no natural climate variability.

Yes, there is natural variability, but climate models do include it, for the 20th time. Volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, ocean oscillations, and internal variability are all explicitly represented or parameterized in models. What models can’t do is magically eliminate the background physics. When you account for natural variability, the residual warming over the past century still matches the measured radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Observing Arctic swings doesn’t invalidate the models; it just highlights where natural variability is strongest on top of the anthropogenic baseline.

 

[ding]

Yes, there is natural variability, but climate models do include it, for the 20th time. Volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, ocean oscillations, and internal variability are all explicitly represented or parameterized in models. What models can’t do is magically eliminate the background physics. When you account for natural variability, the residual warming over the past century still matches the measured radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Observing Arctic swings doesn’t invalidate the models; it just highlights where natural variability is strongest on top of the anthropogenic baseline.

But that number is 0.12 W/m^2, right? Which is what? 0.03C?

That's pretty much zero. Does this look like 0.03C to you?

 

[Anomalism]

But that number is 0.12 W/m^2, right? Which is what? 0.03C?

That's pretty much zero. Does this look like 0.03C to you?

View attachment 1218072

That 0.12 W/m2 is the residual natural forcing after accounting for all known variability. The observed warming isn’t from that. It comes from the ~1 W/m2 anthropogenic forcing. The 0.03 C is just the tiny leftover signal from natural variability, not the main driver of the 1.2 °C we’ve actually measured.