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

[forkup]

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?

No I would like you to get into why you think absolute temperature and CO2 are so closely linked that you can expect the same global temperature despite having the continents in different place, different ocean gateways creating vastly different weather patterns, a different tilt to the earth, different eccentricity and solar output, and why you think climate wont respond differently when you dump the equivalent of a 100 million years worth of CO2 in the atmosphere in the timespan of a century.

Please explain why all these things are not important but CO2 concentration is.

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?

No, I want to dig into why you’re convinced CO₂ concentration alone dictates global temperature, since that's why you don't believe what comes down to the entire scientific community that actuallty studies this stuff, despite:

-Continents shifting positions
-Ocean gateways reorganizing heat transport
-Changes in Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and solar output
-and why dumping the equivalent of 100 million years’ worth of CO₂ into the atmosphere over a century wouldn’t provoke a fundamentally different response.

Also.
"Only 44 % of the theoretical GHG effect reaches the surface due to convection."

Convection is part of how the troposphere equilibrates; it doesn’t “steal” greenhouse forcing. Radiative-convective balance is built into climate models and observations. You are conflating instantaneous radiative forcing with equilibrium surface warming.

“No mechanism measures feedback; they assume all warming is from CO₂.”
Simply false. Feedbacks, are quantified via radiative kernels, satellite observations, and paleoclimate constraints. They don’t assume feedbacks, they calculate them and cross-check with ice-core and instrumental data.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Keep saying it.

You might be right...I am somewhat ambivelant on the subject.

What I can tell you though is that the alarmists have cried wolf for so long.....nobody is listening. Listen to cry about China's renewable energy. Then read about how they are bringing on record amounts of coal fired energy capability (and all that CO2).

What's going to happen is going to happen and you and your ilk have lost the chance to influence it. You maybe should have showed a little more humility instead of alienating people with all you "the sky is falling" tripe.

 

[ding]

No I would like you to get into why you think absolute temperature and CO2 are so closely linked that you can expect the same global temperature despite having the continents in different place, different ocean gateways creating vastly different weather patterns, a different tilt to the earth, different eccentricity and solar output, and why you think climate wont respond differently when you dump the equivalent of a 100 million years worth of CO2 in the atmosphere in the timespan of a century.

Please explain why all these things are not important but CO2 concentration is.

No, I want to dig into why you’re convinced CO₂ concentration alone dictates global temperature, since that's why you don't believe what comes down to the entire scientific community that actuallty studies this stuff, despite:

-Continents shifting positions
-Ocean gateways reorganizing heat transport
-Changes in Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and solar output
-and why dumping the equivalent of 100 million years’ worth of CO₂ into the atmosphere over a century wouldn’t provoke a fundamentally different response.

Also.
"Only 44 % of the theoretical GHG effect reaches the surface due to convection."

Convection is part of how the troposphere equilibrates; it doesn’t “steal” greenhouse forcing. Radiative-convective balance is built into climate models and observations. You are conflating instantaneous radiative forcing with equilibrium surface warming.

“No mechanism measures feedback; they assume all warming is from CO₂.”
Simply false. Feedbacks, are quantified via radiative kernels, satellite observations, and paleoclimate constraints. They don’t assume feedbacks, they calculate them and cross-check with ice-core and instrumental data.

I’d like for you to explain what made CO2 rise and fall prior to the industrial revolution.

Because until you do that, you have no business discussing this subject. That’s how big of a blunder you made.

 

[ding]

that you can expect the same global temperature despite having the continents in different place, different ocean gateways creating vastly different weather patterns

This is even dumber than your belief that prior to the Industrial Revolution CO2 was mysteriously rising and falling and that’s what caused temperatures to change.

The last interglacial period was only 100,000 years ago. There’s no appreciable change in landmass distribution.

 

[forkup]

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.

You said I believe “CO₂ increased and then temperatures increased” as if it always works that way. That’s not my claim. Ice‐core records from the last deglaciation show CO₂ rising roughly 800 years after the initial warming, then acting as a powerful feedback that drove further temperature increases.

On human timescales, though, we’re pushing CO₂ up in mere decades instead of centuries or millennia. We’ve built our cities, food systems, and infrastructure around the assumption of relatively stable climate patterns. A shift that used to unfold over thousands of years now happens within a generation—this speed threatens billions of lives, not just a few isolated communities.

I’m not denying natural climate drivers. I’m saying rapid, human-driven CO₂ spikes carry unprecedented risks because our global society is both more capable of adapting slowly and more vulnerable to sudden changes. Let’s drop the straw-man argument about lead-lag in paleoclimate data and focus on the real issue: the rate of change and the stakes for humanity.

 

[ding]

You said I believe “CO₂ increased and then temperatures increased” as if it always works that way. That’s not my claim. Ice‐core records from the last deglaciation show CO₂ rising roughly 800 years after the initial warming, then acting as a powerful feedback that drove further temperature increases.

On human timescales, though, we’re pushing CO₂ up in mere decades instead of centuries or millennia. We’ve built our cities, food systems, and infrastructure around the assumption of relatively stable climate patterns. A shift that used to unfold over thousands of years now happens within a generation—this speed threatens billions of lives, not just a few isolated communities.

I’m not denying natural climate drivers. I’m saying rapid, human-driven CO₂ spikes carry unprecedented risks because our global society is both more capable of adapting slowly and more vulnerable to sudden changes. Let’s drop the straw-man argument about lead-lag in paleoclimate data and focus on the real issue: the rate of change and the stakes for humanity.

That’s not what you said. What made CO2 go up and down.

 

[ding]

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

This is what you said. And it is wrong.

 

[ding]

then acting as a powerful feedback that drove further temperature increases.

Also wrong. The direct radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2. That is not powerful at all. Temperature swings have been on the order of 8 to 12C. While CO2 was 175 to 300 ppm.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

I know this comment is directed towards something different ...

BUT ...

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.

What is this "simple calculation" and what are the results? ... and have these results been testing under controlled laboratory conditions? ... specifically, what is the numerical relationship between CO2 concentration and irradiation ... from ppm to W/m^2 ... quite a few of us here have been looking for this information ... a link is fine ...

The IPCC has the scientific community running their computer simulations under four different scenarios, from "safely ignored" to "hellish inferno" ... and these simulations produce distribution curves, not discreet results ... however, these scenarios are based on irradiation (W/m^2), and we don't know how much CO2 is takes to change the irradiation ...

Except you said it was a "simple calculation" ... and without seeing these calculations ... or the results ... kinda makes me think your making a mistake here ... carbon dioxide doesn't have enough mass to change climate, and certainly not cause any catastrophes ... it's a "one molecule, one photon" kind of universe these days, that alone refutes CCC ...

 

[forkup]

I’d like for you to explain what made CO2 rise and fall prior to the industrial revolution.

Because until you do that, you have no business discussing this subject. That’s how big of a blunder you made.

Not playing that game. Your argument rests on not believing scientists because earth was once cooler with a higher concentration of co2. I explained why that is. Either concede or explain where my thinking is wrong. Your dismissive tone doesn't fool me. Answer the question.

 

[ding]

Not playing that game. Your argument rests on not believing scientists because earth was once cooler with a higher concentration of co2. I explained why that is. Either concede or explain where my thinking is wrong. Your dismissive tone doesn't fool me. Answer the question.

In other words you don’t understand the mechanism. It’s really quite simple. It has to do with the solubility of CO2 in water. 94% of the planet’s CO2 is stored in the oceans. You are discussing things you know very little about.

 

[forkup]

This is even dumber than your belief that prior to the Industrial Revolution CO2 was mysteriously rising and falling and that’s what caused temperatures to change.

The last interglacial period was only 100,000 years ago. There’s no appreciable change in landmass distribution.

Cherry picking again I see. You don't seem to be capable of having a good faith debate if your life depended on it. Picking the one thing that isn't applicable to explain the climate 100000 year ago. But what did affect the climate if were talking millions. And simply ignore all the other things I said, so you can pretend I don't make sense.

The last interglacial was caused by.

-Orbital Forcing (Milankovitch Cycles)• Low summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere—caused by a particular combination of Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession—meant summers weren’t warm enough to melt winter snow. This let ice sheets build up year after year.
-Ice-Albedo Feedback, As ice sheets and sea ice expanded, they reflected more sunlight back to space. That extra reflectivity (albedo) amplified the initial cooling, allowing ice to grow even further.
-Low Greenhouse-Gas Concentrations• CO₂ levels hovered around 260–280 ppm, compared to today’s ~420 ppm. Fewer greenhouse gases meant less heat was trapped, reinforcing the cold.
-Ocean Circulation Changes• A sluggish or reconfigured thermohaline circulation reduced the northward transport of warm water. Cooler ocean currents helped sustain the ice growth on land.
-Dust and Vegetation Shifts• Expanded deserts and sparse vegetation increased airborne dust, which can both reflect sunlight and deposit on ice, changing its melting behavior. Vegetation retreats also lower carbon sequestration, keeping CO₂ low.

Note that CO2 was just one reason.

 

[ding]

Not playing that game. Your argument rests on not believing scientists because earth was once cooler with a higher concentration of co2. I explained why that is. Either concede or explain where my thinking is wrong. Your dismissive tone doesn't fool me. Answer the question.

No. My argument rests on the temperature record of the planet, thermal isolation of the polar regions, landmass configurations of the polar regions, thresholds for extensive continental glaciation at the polar regions, the key differences between glaciation in the polar regions, abrupt climate changes both glaciation and deglaciation due to changes in Deepwater ocean circulation, reasons and evidence for why ocean currents change and the fact that when the AMOC switches off there won’t be any debates on climate catastrophes because it will be undeniable within 1 decade.

 

[ding]

Cherry picking again I see. You don't seem to be capable of having a good faith debate if your life depended on it. Picking the one thing that isn't applicable to explain the climate 100000 year ago. But what did affect the climate if were talking millions. And simply ignore all the other things I said, so you can pretend I don't make sense.

The last interglacial was caused by.

-Orbital Forcing (Milankovitch Cycles)• Low summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere—caused by a particular combination of Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession—meant summers weren’t warm enough to melt winter snow. This let ice sheets build up year after year.
-Ice-Albedo Feedback, As ice sheets and sea ice expanded, they reflected more sunlight back to space. That extra reflectivity (albedo) amplified the initial cooling, allowing ice to grow even further.
-Low Greenhouse-Gas Concentrations• CO₂ levels hovered around 260–280 ppm, compared to today’s ~420 ppm. Fewer greenhouse gases meant less heat was trapped, reinforcing the cold.
-Ocean Circulation Changes• A sluggish or reconfigured thermohaline circulation reduced the northward transport of warm water. Cooler ocean currents helped sustain the ice growth on land.
-Dust and Vegetation Shifts• Expanded deserts and sparse vegetation increased airborne dust, which can both reflect sunlight and deposit on ice, changing its melting behavior. Vegetation retreats also lower carbon sequestration, keeping CO₂ low.

Note that CO2 was just one reason.

Dude, you argued changing landmass distribution and ocean currents for an event that was 100,000 years ago.

That is idiotic. It is fraudulent for you to not acknowledge the mistakes you are making.

 

[forkup]

In other words you don’t understand the mechanism. It’s really quite simple. It has to do with the solubility of CO2 in water. 94% of the planet’s CO2 is stored in the oceans. You are discussing things you know very little about.

Ding, there's quite a few things I know nothing about. In fact, I freely admit all I know about climate science is what I can find on the internet. I'm a capable webmaster but not a scientist. Here's the difference. I know there's things I don't know, and as such i try to find out.

You on the other hand pretend to know. And when that's challenged the only thing you have is dishonesty and cheap debating tricks. That's fine, we both are idiotic enough to spend our Friday night talking to strangers on the internet. I just will leave you with the fact, that I do know how empty your claims are, since they need this level of deliberate dishonesty to be maintained.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Cherry picking again I see. You don't seem to be capable of having a good faith debate if your life depended on it. Picking the one thing that isn't applicable to explain the climate 100000 year ago. But what did affect the climate if were talking millions. And simply ignore all the other things I said, so you can pretend I don't make sense.

The last interglacial was caused by.

-Orbital Forcing (Milankovitch Cycles)• Low summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere—caused by a particular combination of Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession—meant summers weren’t warm enough to melt winter snow. This let ice sheets build up year after year.
-Ice-Albedo Feedback, As ice sheets and sea ice expanded, they reflected more sunlight back to space. That extra reflectivity (albedo) amplified the initial cooling, allowing ice to grow even further.
-Low Greenhouse-Gas Concentrations• CO₂ levels hovered around 260–280 ppm, compared to today’s ~420 ppm. Fewer greenhouse gases meant less heat was trapped, reinforcing the cold.
-Ocean Circulation Changes• A sluggish or reconfigured thermohaline circulation reduced the northward transport of warm water. Cooler ocean currents helped sustain the ice growth on land.
-Dust and Vegetation Shifts• Expanded deserts and sparse vegetation increased airborne dust, which can both reflect sunlight and deposit on ice, changing its melting behavior. Vegetation retreats also lower carbon sequestration, keeping CO₂ low.

Note that CO2 was just one reason.

Gases doesn't trap anything a mistake you just made.

How come we had large temperature swings during this interglacial period with negligible CO2 change.

LINK

 

[ding]

The last interglacial was caused by.

-Orbital Forcing (Milankovitch Cycles)• Low summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere—caused by a particular combination of Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession—meant summers weren’t warm enough to melt winter snow. This let ice sheets build up year after year.
-Ice-Albedo Feedback, As ice sheets and sea ice expanded, they reflected more sunlight back to space. That extra reflectivity (albedo) amplified the initial cooling, allowing ice to grow even further.
-Low Greenhouse-Gas Concentrations• CO₂ levels hovered around 260–280 ppm, compared to today’s ~420 ppm. Fewer greenhouse gases meant less heat was trapped, reinforcing the cold.
-Ocean Circulation Changes• A sluggish or reconfigured thermohaline circulation reduced the northward transport of warm water. Cooler ocean currents helped sustain the ice growth on land.
-Dust and Vegetation Shifts• Expanded deserts and sparse vegetation increased airborne dust, which can both reflect sunlight and deposit on ice, changing its melting behavior. Vegetation retreats also lower carbon sequestration, keeping CO₂ low.

Horseshit.

Abrupt climate changes like northern hemisphere glaciation - which is very abrupt - is caused by the disruption of thermohaline circulation. Orbital forcing is a red herring.

 

[forkup]

Dude, you argued changing landmass distribution and ocean currents for an event that was 100,000 years ago.

That is idiotic. It is fraudulent for you to not acknowledge the mistakes you are making.

Especially since the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

Note the highlighted phrase, which is what I responded to. By the way 100000 years ago CO2 levels where way lower than 600 ppm in fact they were around 200. ; As I said, cheap debating tricks. Straw manning me because you have nothing substantive.

 

[ding]

Ding, there's quite a few things I know nothing about. In fact, I freely admit all I know about climate science is what I can find on the internet. I'm a capable webmaster but not a scientist. Here's the difference. I know there's things I don't know, and as such i try to find out.

You on the other hand pretend to know. And when that's challenged the only thing you have is dishonesty and cheap debating tricks. That's fine, we both are idiotic enough to spend our Friday night talking to strangers on the internet. I just will leave you with the fact, that I do know how empty your claims are, since they need this level of deliberate dishonesty to be maintained.

No. I’ve actually studied it quite a lot. It’s the ocean, not the atmosphere or the sun. Oh, sure the atmosphere and sun play a role but they are supporting roles. The dominant driver of our planet’s climate is how heat is circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic because the planet’s landmass is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and it’s the northern pole which is most volatile for glaciation and deglaciation.

 

[ReinyDays]

... meant summers weren’t warm enough to melt winter snow ...

... and winters weren't cold enough to cause snow ...

I think you're getting your information mixed up here ... or just plain don't understand ... orbital mechanics doesn't change average annual temperatures ... what we lose at one solstice we gain back at the other, and vice versa ...