The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[ding]

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.

What do they show for natural forcing and can you link to it?

 

[Anomalism]

What do they show for natural forcing and can you link to it?

View attachment 1218075

The graphic confirms what I said, once again. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, CO2 alone contributes ~1.7 W/m2, with other human sources adding more, partially offset by aerosols. Natural forcing, mainly solar changes, is tiny, around +0.05 W/m2, basically negligible compared to the ~1–2 W/m2 net anthropogenic signal. That 0.12 W/m2 I mentioned is just the leftover natural variability, not the driver of the 1.2 C we’ve actually measured. The IPCC AR5 figure clearly shows human activity as the primary forcing over the industrial era.

Figure SPM.5 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[DGS49]

At this point, all of civilized humanity is waiting for the Earth Savers to point to one real THING, right now, that proves their point. The seas are not rising. Glaciers are shrinking; so what? The weather is actually improving for most of the inhabited world - getting a little warmer. There is no reason to expect that mankind will not be able to devise engineering solutions to all of the problems that warming might bring, as it comes, just as New Orleans, the Netherlands, and Venice have been protected for the foreseeable future already..

It is difficult to convince people that it is wise to spend trillions of dollars TODAY - real dollars - to fight a possible problem a hundred years out. Real vs. possible. Tough sell.

 

[Anomalism]

At this point, all of civilized humanity is waiting for the Earth Savers to point to one real THING, right now, that proves their point. The seas are not rising. Glaciers are shrinking; so what? The weather is actually improving for most of the inhabited world - getting a little warmer. There is no reason to expect that mankind will not be able to devise engineering solutions to all of the problems that warming might bring, as it comes, just as New Orleans, the Netherlands, and Venice have been protected for the foreseeable future already..

It is difficult to convince people that it is wise to spend trillions of dollars TODAY - real dollars - to fight a possible problem a hundred years out. Real vs. possible. Tough sell.

There is measurable, ongoing change. Global mean sea level has risen roughly 20 cm since 1900, with the rate doubling since 1970. This isn’t flat and it’s directly observed via tide gauges and satellites. Glaciers worldwide are losing mass at accelerating rates, not just shrinking locally. Arctic sea ice extent is declining, permafrost is thawing, and extreme heat events are increasing in frequency and intensity across many regions. These are empirically documented changes.

 

[EMH]

Latitude alone does not dictate ice sheet formation. Ice sheets grow or shrink based on mass balance, the difference between accumulation and ablation. Being within 600 miles of a pole does make conditions potentially favorable for ice, but it’s not deterministic. You can have high latitude land that never forms a major ice sheet because snowfall is low or temperatures fluctuate enough to limit accumulation. Conversely, lower latitude regions with high snowfall and persistent cold can sustain ice year round. The onset of ice ages involves orbital variations, greenhouse gas feedbacks, and ocean circulation changes, all of which influence mass balance globally, not just latitude.

Your claim about “600 miles to the pole” being the universal trigger for ice ages is not science; it’s a comforting story you’ve latched onto.

Your insistence that I STFU because you feel your 600 mile correlation can’t be refuted isn’t debate; it’s an emotional defense mechanism. You’re lashing out at anyone pointing out nuance. Science isn’t about moral victory or gut level conviction; it’s about evidence, mechanisms, and testing ideas. Clinging to a simplistic rule while attacking anyone who disagrees is a textbook example of arguing from psychological security rather than reasoning. You’re angry because complexity undermines the neat pattern you’ve convinced yourself exists.

Translation - the poster was unable to find any piece of land on Earth that refutes 600 miles to a pole


This poster is a seriously sick person.

You ask a question, can you find any land that refutes 600 miles to a pole.

Poster can't do that, but goes on as if it did...

mental case....


YOU CANNOT REFUTE 600 miles to a POLE because that is a LAW, land inside of 600 miles to a pole goes INTO ICE AGE.

 

[ding]

The graphic confirms what I said, once again. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, CO2 alone contributes ~1.7 W/m2, with other human sources adding more, partially offset by aerosols. Natural forcing, mainly solar changes, is tiny, around +0.05 W/m2, basically negligible compared to the ~1–2 W/m2 net anthropogenic signal. That 0.12 W/m2 I mentioned is just the leftover natural variability, not the driver of the 1.2 C we’ve actually measured. The IPCC AR5 figure clearly shows human activity as the primary forcing over the industrial era.

Figure SPM.5 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Here is what you said earlier:

Direct CO2 effect: ~0.5C
Feedback amplification: ~1.0C
Combined: 1.5C
Observed warming so far: ~1.2 °C

Where is the natural climate variability again?

 

[ding]

with the rate doubling since 1970.

From what to what?

 

[ding]

Glaciers worldwide are losing mass at accelerating rates

Do you believe this was different than the previous interglacial period that was 2C warmer than today with 26' higher seas than today and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?

 

[Anomalism]

Translation - the poster was unable to find any piece of land on Earth that refutes 600 miles to a pole


This poster is a seriously sick person.

You ask a question, can you find any land that refutes 600 miles to a pole.

Poster can't do that, but goes on as if it did...

mental case....


YOU CANNOT REFUTE 600 miles to a POLE because that is a LAW, land inside of 600 miles to a pole goes INTO ICE AGE.

No, “600 miles to a pole = ice age” is not a law. It’s a misinterpretation of climate science. Latitude affects potential conditions for ice accumulation, but whether an ice sheet actually forms depends on mass balance, which is determined by snowfall, temperature, orbital cycles, greenhouse gas levels, and ocean/atmosphere circulation. There are plenty of high latitude areas that never supported large ice sheets because the conditions weren’t right. Science doesn’t work by anecdotes or universal rules based on a simple distance from the pole; it works by mechanisms and measurable variables. Treating a single pattern as absolute truth and calling anyone who questions it sick is not debate; it’s a refusal to engage with evidence or nuance.

 

[Anomalism]

Here is what you said earlier:

Direct CO2 effect: ~0.5C
Feedback amplification: ~1.0C
Combined: 1.5C
Observed warming so far: ~1.2 °C

Where is the natural climate variability again?

From what to what?

Do you believe this was different than the previous interglacial period that was 2C warmer than today with 26' higher seas than today and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?

The numbers I gave for CO2 forcing include both the direct radiative effect (~0.5 C) and the amplification from feedbacks (~1 C), which together produce ~1.5 C of expected warming for the CO2 increase we’ve seen. Natural variability is explicitly accounted for in detection and attribution studies: volcanic activity, solar cycles, ocean oscillations, and other internal fluctuations are quantified to define the baseline. That residual 1–1.5 C matches the observed ~1.2C warming since the late 19th century, meaning the human signal dominates.

The “rate doubling since 1970” refers to sea level rise accelerating from roughly 1.2 mm/year in the early 20th century to about 3.3 mm/year in recent decades, measured by tide gauges and satellites.

Comparing today to past interglacials doesn’t contradict this. Those periods had very different boundary conditions: orbital configurations, ice sheet extents, and greenhouse gas concentrations all differed. The fact that some interglacials were warmer or had higher seas does not negate the measured anthropogenic contribution today. Glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass faster than in the recent past, and the acceleration aligns with the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases. Natural variability exists, but it cannot account for the consistent, global, multi-decadal trend we observe. CO2 forcing explains the residual warming quantitatively.

 

[EMH]

No, “600 miles to a pole = ice age” is not a law.

It is a law and you have ZERO DATA refuting it.

This is how "the science" is practiced...

Toss out complete BS
It gets refuted
Lie, claim it wasn't refuted, offer no data to validate, and keep parroting it

 

[EMH]

but whether an ice sheet actually forms depends on

whether or not the annual snowfall fully melts during summer. Inside of 600 miles to a pole on either pole, the 600 miles law holds 100%.

Land with no ice sheet arrives at 600 miles to pole. Annual snowfall ceases to fully melt during summer. Annual snowfall starts to stack. That is the start of an ICE AGE which is a CONTINENT SPECIFIC EVENT since Greenland just entered its ice age and North America just thawed out of its ice age at the same time, during the past million years.

 

[DGS49]

There is measurable, ongoing change. Global mean sea level has risen roughly 20 cm since 1900, with the rate doubling since 1970. This isn’t flat and it’s directly observed via tide gauges and satellites. Glaciers worldwide are losing mass at accelerating rates, not just shrinking locally. Arctic sea ice extent is declining, permafrost is thawing, and extreme heat events are increasing in frequency and intensity across many regions. These are empirically documented changes.

Even accepting what you say - I have no reason not to - the sea level change is a tiny fraction of the change that occurs every day with the tides. No big deal.

 

[ding]

The numbers I gave for CO2 forcing include both the direct radiative effect (~0.5 C) and the amplification from feedbacks (~1 C), which together produce ~1.5 C of expected warming for the CO2 increase we’ve seen. Natural variability is explicitly accounted for in detection and attribution studies: volcanic activity, solar cycles, ocean oscillations, and other internal fluctuations are quantified to define the baseline. That residual 1–1.5 C matches the observed ~1.2C warming since the late 19th century, meaning the human signal dominates.

The “rate doubling since 1970” refers to sea level rise accelerating from roughly 1.2 mm/year in the early 20th century to about 3.3 mm/year in recent decades, measured by tide gauges and satellites.

Comparing today to past interglacials doesn’t contradict this. Those periods had very different boundary conditions: orbital configurations, ice sheet extents, and greenhouse gas concentrations all differed. The fact that some interglacials were warmer or had higher seas does not negate the measured anthropogenic contribution today. Glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass faster than in the recent past, and the acceleration aligns with the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases. Natural variability exists, but it cannot account for the consistent, global, multi-decadal trend we observe. CO2 forcing explains the residual warming quantitatively.

Except the numbers you provided left zero room for natural variability thus proving my point that they assume there is no natural warming. Comparing interglacials is how one determines the temperature range for natural warming. We are still in that normal temperature range. What this negates is the assumption that the only warming that can exist is anthropogenic. Which they would discover if they actually modeled the glacial cycles for gulf stream switch off.

 

[Anomalism]

It is a law and you have ZERO DATA refuting it.

This is how "the science" is practiced...

Toss out complete BS
It gets refuted
Lie, claim it wasn't refuted, offer no data to validate, and keep parroting it

What’s actually happening here is that you don’t understand the difference between correlation, mechanism, and law, and you’re substituting volume for knowledge. You’ve invented a fake law based on a kindergarten intuition (closer to pole = colder) and then declared victory over physics, geography, and climatology. That’s not how reality works.

A law must be universally true. Yours is instantly falsified by Iceland, Norway, Alaska, Siberia, southern Chile, New Zealand, and literally half of Antarctica. Ice sheets form from mass balance, not latitude. Snowfall, temperature, elevation, and ocean heat transport dominate. You’re ignoring ocean currents, topography, precipitation, and radiative balance because they’re inconveniently complex and you don’t understand them. So instead you retreat to a single magic number (600 miles) and call it a law. That’s cargo cult reasoning. You noticed a pattern, stripped away all mechanisms, and turned it into a superstition. You’re not being refuted because of ideology; you’re being refuted because your model collapses the moment it touches reality.

 

[Anomalism]

Even accepting what you say - I have no reason not to - the sea level change is a tiny fraction of the change that occurs every day with the tides. No big deal.

That’s a category error. Tides are oscillations around a baseline; sea level rise is a shift of the baseline itself. Tides go up and down twice a day and cancel out to zero. Sea level rise doesn’t cancel out. It accumulates. That 20 cm is global and additive, and it stacks on top of every future tide, storm surge, and king tide. A few extra centimeters radically changes flood frequency because coastal flooding is threshold based. Once you raise the baseline, events that used to be rare become routine. That’s why cities are seeing sunny day flooding now. Tides are noise. Sea level rise is the signal. Comparing the two is misunderstanding what the measurement even represents.

 

[Anomalism]

Except the numbers you provided left zero room for natural variability thus proving my point that they assume there is no natural warming. Comparing interglacials is how one determines the temperature range for natural warming. We are still in that normal temperature range. What this negates is the assumption that the only warming that can exist is anthropogenic. Which they would discover if they actually modeled the glacial cycles for gulf stream switch off.

The numbers I provided do not exclude natural variability; they reflect the residual warming after explicitly accounting for solar, volcanic, and internal climate fluctuations. The ~0.5C direct CO2 effect plus 1C feedback amplification produces an expected 1.5C warming, which aligns with the observed 1.2 °C increase. That match is exactly why scientists conclude anthropogenic forcing dominates. Natural variability modulates short-term patterns but cannot account for the consistent global trend over the past century. Interglacial comparisons inform sensitivity and context but don’t negate the human contribution or require all warming to be natural.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Greenland warming =f(wind) not CO2

 

[EMH]

which aligns with the observed 1.2 °C increase.

There has been ZERO increase in Earth temperature for the past 50 years.

Sincerely,

satellite and balloon actual unFUDGED data
surface air pressure


CO2 does nothing, time to move on...

 

[Anomalism]

There has been ZERO increase in Earth temperature for the past 50 years.

Sincerely,

satellite and balloon actual unFUDGED data
surface air pressure


CO2 does nothing, time to move on...

That's just false.