This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[ding]

I also don't have the arrogance to believe reading a few web sites could possibly qualify anyone to disprove conclusions made by real climate scientists.

I’ve studied paleoclimates for 20 years. So it’s nothing like you are claiming. The data I have studied is from the geologic record and is widely accepted by everyone. It’s not from a few websites.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I’ve studied paleoclimates for 20 years. So it’s nothing like you are claiming. The data I have studied is from the geologic record and is widely accepted by everyone. It’s not from a few websites.

It's BULLDOG's way of convincing himself that nobody else can have an opinion except the scientists he anoints in his feeble little mind. I've been around this stuff forever and while I am still somewhat neutral, I know when people have a good fundamental background and when they are just lapping up the words of those who say they are "experts".

 

[HikerGuy83]

So it’s nothing like you are claiming.

You can pretty much figure that if BULLDOG supports it.....it's wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Given the quality of your posts (meaning lack of content, lack of supporting data, lack of a balanced approach), I'd say you are in NO position to comment on where people take their lead. Like BULLDOG and schmidlap, you show NO capability when it comes to the actual science and understanding.

People like ding and EMH, while at odds...both have a very good grasp of the concepts they push.

Take a lead from them and open a book instead of crawling up Al Gore's backside.

Yes, because we all know a day or so of web site schooling makes you so much better qualified to interpret the data than those that spent years in school and have worked in the field for decades.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's BULLDOG's way of convincing himself that nobody else can have an opinion except the scientists he anoints in his feeble little mind. I've been around this stuff forever and while I am still somewhat neutral, I know when people have a good fundamental background and when they are just lapping up the words of those who say they are "experts".

That is why he is so freaking ignorant.

I bet he would have strongly disagreed with George Ellery Hale on his hiring a high school drop out who over the years propped up Edwin Hubble who has a PHD in his back pocket.

Milton Humason LINK

Excerpt:

Humason dropped out of school and had no formal education past the age of 14. Because he loved the mountains, and Mount Wilson in particular, he became a "mule skinner" taking materials and equipment up the mountain while Mount Wilson Observatory was being built. In 1917, after a short stint on a ranch in La Verne, he became a janitor at the observatory. Out of sheer interest, he volunteered to be a night assistant at the observatory. His technical skill and quiet manner made him a favorite on the mountain. Recognizing his talent, in 1919, George Ellery Hale made him a Mt. Wilson staff member. This was unprecedented, as Humason did not have a Ph.D., or even a high school diploma. He soon proved Hale's judgment correct, as he made several key observational discoveries. He became known as a meticulous observer, obtaining photographs and difficult spectrograms of faint galaxies. His observations played a major role in the development of physical cosmology, including assisting Edwin Hubble in formulating Hubble's law. In 1950 he earned a D.Sc. from Lund University. He retired in 1957.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Bulldog would discount him because he wasn't a scientist and with a HS diploma, that is why his chronic education and authority fallacies are stupid.

Clyde Tombaugh was a newly minted High School Graduate when Lowell Observatory hired him to do work he never done before but found Pluto in just 9 months time while Professional Astronomer with big college degrees spent several decades never finding it.

LINK

 

[forkup]

From simple physics calculations the direct radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is 1C on earth.

The original claim was that CO₂ isn’t a greenhouse gas. That’s demonstrably false. Venus is a textbook example—its CO₂-rich atmosphere traps heat so effectively that surface temperatures reach 462°C, despite receiving only slightly more solar energy than Earth. Without that greenhouse effect, Venus would be closer to -40°C.

Now, if we shift the conversation to Earth: yes, the direct radiative forcing from doubling CO₂ is about 1°C. But calling that “simple” misses the point entirely. That 1°C isn’t the end—it’s the beginning. It triggers feedback loops:

• Ice-albedo feedback: Less sea ice means less sunlight reflected, more absorbed.
• Water vapor feedback: Warmer air holds more moisture, which traps even more heat.
• Cloud dynamics: Complex but significant amplifiers.

And this isn’t just theoretical. Paleoclimate data from Antarctic ice cores show that CO₂ levels and global temperatures have moved in lockstep for hundreds of thousands of years. When CO₂ rose, temperatures rose. When CO₂ fell, temperatures fell. This correlation is clearly documented in the EPICA Dome C ice core record https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/def...nd Carbon Dioxide Change - FINAL OCT 2021.pdf and supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their Fourth Assessment Report2. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter6-1.pdf

Climate isn’t a single-variable equation. It’s a system of interdependent feedbacks. So no, you can’t “simply” predict the full impact by isolating one factor. In fact when factoring in those feedbacks the actual number of doubling CO2 is estimated to be between 2,5 and 4 degrees C. Rate of Sea Level Rise Doubled over 30 Years, New Study Shows. Even now large parts of the land near the Gulf Coast have become effectively uninsurable. And that's just for starters. But hey, why worry right?

 

[forkup]

The direct radiative forcing of CO2 which is valid and based upon simple physics.

I contend that the IPCC intentionally includes feedback instead of reporting feedback separately from the direct radiative forcing of CO2 because they know that 1C per doubling of CO2 is insignificant.

Why would you strip out feedbacks? If we want to predict real-world impacts, we must include every effect that CO₂ triggers. Claiming “CO₂ only raises temperature by 1 °C when you ignore all its knock-on effects” is a distraction. It’s like saying a hurricane isn’t dangerous because it starts as a low-pressure system over warm water.

 

[ding]

The original claim was that CO₂ isn’t a greenhouse gas. That’s demonstrably false. Venus is a textbook example—its CO₂-rich atmosphere traps heat so effectively that surface temperatures reach 462°C, despite receiving only slightly more solar energy than Earth. Without that greenhouse effect, Venus would be closer to -40°C.

Now, if we shift the conversation to Earth: yes, the direct radiative forcing from doubling CO₂ is about 1°C. But calling that “simple” misses the point entirely. That 1°C isn’t the end—it’s the beginning. It triggers feedback loops:

• Ice-albedo feedback: Less sea ice means less sunlight reflected, more absorbed.
• Water vapor feedback: Warmer air holds more moisture, which traps even more heat.
• Cloud dynamics: Complex but significant amplifiers.

And this isn’t just theoretical. Paleoclimate data from Antarctic ice cores show that CO₂ levels and global temperatures have moved in lockstep for hundreds of thousands of years. When CO₂ rose, temperatures rose. When CO₂ fell, temperatures fell. This correlation is clearly documented in the EPICA Dome C ice core record https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/8 - Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change - FINAL OCT 2021.pdf and supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their Fourth Assessment Report2. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter6-1.pdf

Climate isn’t a single-variable equation. It’s a system of interdependent feedbacks. So no, you can’t “simply” predict the full impact by isolating one factor. In fact when factoring in those feedbacks the actual number of doubling CO2 is estimated to be between 2,5 and 4 degrees C. Rate of Sea Level Rise Doubled over 30 Years, New Study Shows. Even now large parts of the land near the Gulf Coast have become effectively uninsurable. And that's just for starters. But hey, why worry right?

It’s the magnitude of the feedback that is in question. Do you really believe the magnitude of the feedback can be 3 to 4 times the direct radiative forcing of CO2? I don’t. Especially since the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

Do you know how they are estimating the feedback? Do you know what assumptions they are making? I do.

 

[ding]

And this isn’t just theoretical. Paleoclimate data from Antarctic ice cores show that CO₂ levels and global temperatures have moved in lockstep for hundreds of thousands of years

Which was temperature leading CO2 by 1000 years. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature. Temperature was not a function of CO2. Do you know why? Do you understand that mechanism? I do.

 

[ding]

When CO₂ rose, temperatures rose. When CO₂ fell, temperatures fell.

Incorrect. What was this mysterious mechanism that was causing CO2 to rise and fall?

 

[ding]

But hey, why worry right?

I’m not. For the past 3 million years the planet’s climate has been driven by the northern hemisphere. When heat is circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic, like it is today, the planet warms. When heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic gets disrupted, the planet cools. It’s called thermohaline circulation.

 

[ding]

Why would you strip out feedbacks? If we want to predict real-world impacts, we must include every effect that CO₂ triggers. Claiming “CO₂ only raises temperature by 1 °C when you ignore all its knock-on effects” is a distraction. It’s like saying a hurricane isn’t dangerous because it starts as a low-pressure system over warm water.

For starters the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record does not support the belief that the climate is sensitive to CO2. The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm. The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 24ft higher seas than today and 120 ppm less CO2.

Next reason is that only 44% of the theoretical GHG effect of the entire atmosphere reaches the surface of the planet due to convective currents whisking that heat away from the surface. So it’s ridiculous to assume CO2 is 350% more effective than the entire atmosphere.

The next reason is that there is no mechanism that measures feedback. They assume all incremental warming is from incremental CO2 and that there is no natural warming occurring which is ridiculous.

Would you like for me to get into the minutia of modeling where slight changes in initial conditions can lead to drastic changes? Or how the IPCC models don’t use high variability solar output datasets? Or how the IPCC models attribute the UHI to CO2?

 

[forkup]

It’s the magnitude of the feedback that is in question. Do you really believe the magnitude of the feedback can be 3 to 4 times the direct radiative forcing of CO2? I don’t. Especially since the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

Do you know how they are estimating the feedback? Do you know what assumptions they are making? I do.

An argument from personal incredulity doesn’t hold up, if you disagree, spell out your evidence and logic instead of staying vague.

Pointing to past cooling when CO₂ was over 600 ppm misses the point. Climate depends on context, other forcings, continental layouts, ocean currents, and on how fast CO₂ rises. We’re technically still in an ice age, but today’s spike happens in decades, not millions of years.

What truly worries me is the speed of modern warming. That rapid jump will disrupt food and water supplies, overwhelm infrastructure, drive extreme weather, and force mass migrations.

Humanity will likely survive everything nature or thermonuclear war can throw at us, but the loss of life, economic collapse, and social upheaval would still be catastrophic.

As for what they are assuming. They start with a simple calculation of how much extra CO₂ warms the planet on its own, then check that against real‐world CO₂ and temperature records. After that, they run computer simulations that layer in things like clouds, extra water vapor, melting ice, and the way the ocean soaks up heat. Those simulations need a few educated guesses, like how clouds form or how deep the ocean mixes, but once you tune them, so they reproduce past temperature changes, you consistently see that all those extra effects end up adding about three to four times more warming than CO₂ by itself.

So, what fault do you see in that methodology? Because from where I'm sitting, the only thing you got is that in your opinion it's impossible that feedback loops truly exist because earth was once cooler with a higher concentration of CO2, something that again simply ignores a whole lot of variables that affect climate.

 

[ding]

An argument from personal incredulity doesn’t hold up, if you disagree, spell out your evidence and logic instead of staying vague.

Pointing to past cooling when CO₂ was over 600 ppm misses the point. Climate depends on context, other forcings, continental layouts, ocean currents, and on how fast CO₂ rises. We’re technically still in an ice age, but today’s spike happens in decades, not millions of years.

What truly worries me is the speed of modern warming. That rapid jump will disrupt food and water supplies, overwhelm infrastructure, drive extreme weather, and force mass migrations.

Humanity will likely survive everything nature or thermonuclear war can throw at us, but the loss of life, economic collapse, and social upheaval would still be catastrophic.

As for what they are assuming. They start with a simple calculation of how much extra CO₂ warms the planet on its own, then check that against real‐world CO₂ and temperature records. After that, they run computer simulations that layer in things like clouds, extra water vapor, melting ice, and the way the ocean soaks up heat. Those simulations need a few educated guesses, like how clouds form or how deep the ocean mixes, but once you tune them, so they reproduce past temperature changes, you consistently see that all those extra effects end up adding about three to four times more warming than CO₂ by itself.

So, what fault do you see in that methodology? Because from where I'm sitting, the only thing you got is that in your opinion it's impossible that feedback loops truly exist because earth was once cooler with a higher concentration of CO2, something that again simply ignores a whole lot of variables that affect climate.

You think CO2 led temperature prior to the Industrial Revolution. You think CO2 increased and then temperatures increased. You think CO2 declined and then temperatures declined. That’s a pretty dumb error. Clearly you don’t understand the data or the mechanisms. No wonder you believe as you do.

 

[ding]

Yes, because we all know a day or so of web site schooling makes you so much better qualified to interpret the data than those that spent years in school and have worked in the field for decades.

20 years of studying paleoclimates.

 

[ding]

An argument from personal incredulity doesn’t hold up, if you disagree, spell out your evidence and logic instead of staying vague.

But arguments of empirical climate evidence of the geologic record and convective currents only allowing 44% of the entire atmosphere’s GHG effect to warm the surface of the planet do.

 

[HikerGuy83]

es, because we all know a day or so of web site schooling makes you so much better qualified to interpret the data than those that spent years in school and have worked in the field for decades.

Did you read his post....? 20 years studying paleoclimate.

Who the f**k are you to assume people only get what they know from the internet. Are you telling me capable people who've worked with data their entire lives are not able to enter this conversation. People who know physics, chemistry, and engineering?

It's no wonder you don't trust anyone else. If your understanding of how the world works is that limited and ignorant, I'd be afraid to try and support my positions too.

Now, you'll begin your patented scorched earth retreat and eventually bow out of the thread.

Do us all a favor and just leave.

 

[HikerGuy83]

20 years of studying paleoclimates.

Yeah, he missed that part.

A chemical engineer is trained in heat balances, the thermodynamic analysis of open and closed systems, statistics, mathematical modeling, and so forth. Physical systems are interesting on paper, just look at all the models the climate alarmists put forth (or didn't) claiming we'll be devastating the coasts.

And it hasn't happened anymore than it happened prior to the run up of CO2.

 

[ding]

Yeah, he missed that part.

A chemical engineer is trained in heat balances, the thermodynamic analysis of open and closed systems, statistics, mathematical modeling, and so forth. Physical systems are interesting on paper, just look at all the models the climate alarmists put forth (or didn't) claiming we'll be devastating the coasts.

And it hasn't happened anymore than it happened prior to the run up of CO2.

Yep, I just heard forkup argue he believes in AGW because throughout the geologic record temperatures followed CO2 without ever stop and asking why CO2 was going up and down.