The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[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

Which confirms what I said which is that their models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. So they have assumed there is no natural warming which flies in the face of the empirical evidence which shows that there are natural climate fluctuations; warming trends and cooling trends.

 

[ding]

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.

Their models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. Their methodology is flawed which is how they determined climate sensitivity is 3.5 times the direct RF of CO2. Which is ridiculous.

 

[Yarddog]

Well, if C02 is the problem, the big elephant in the room is being ignored here..instead of cracking down on some mom and pop trucking co in California, how about the big brains realize that the real problem would be MASS deforestation throughout the world , primarily Brazil and Africa.. where in many cases the trees are needed for fuel... or sometimes removed to harvest bio-mass..

What these deveolping countries need to solve their emerging energy needs before they cut down every tree, is oil or gas based fuel as it is the easiest and quickest to deliver.
Solar takes a lot more infrastructure, and panels become a huge target for theft.

 

[ding]

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

She's not a guy.

She told me to tell you to get bent.

 

[Anomalism]

Which confirms what I said which is that their models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. So they have assumed there is no natural warming which flies in the face of the empirical evidence which shows that there are natural climate fluctuations; warming trends and cooling trends.

View attachment 1219812

Their models can't distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. Their methodology is flawed which is how they determined climate sensitivity is 3.5 times the direct RF of CO2. Which is ridiculous.

That’s a misunderstanding of how detection and attribution works. Scientists aren’t just assuming CO2 is the cause; they explicitly account for natural forcings when estimating anthropogenic contributions.

Climate sensitivity isn’t pulled from a model in isolation; it’s constrained by paleoclimate data, observed energy imbalances, and instrumental records. The fact that ECS is larger than the direct CO2 forcing isn’t arbitrary. It quantifies measurable feedbacks that amplify the initial radiative forcing.