Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Mushroom]

You’re stacking a bunch of true statements and then jumping to a conclusion that simply doesn’t follow from them.

Is this the warmest period since the LGM? Is this or is this not the fastest period of warming seen since the LGM?

Come on now, you seem to have me confused with somebody else, those I just posited are rather simple. Is this the warmest time in the past 12,000 years? How about the past 5,000 years? The past 2,000 years? The past 1,000 years?

You once again skirt and avoid answering and attempt to put this all back on me and my beliefs. That is not it at all.

Do you deny that this interglacial the coldest known in over 2.5 million years?

Once again, a simply yes or no.

Do you deny that in every single interglacial on record that sea levels were significantly higher than they are in this one?

Yes, I made true statements. But I do not "jump to conclusions" at all. You seem upset that I am not jumping to your conclusions.

Yes, the Eemian was only "1-2 degrees warmer", but that was also on average, and for a period of over 15,000 years. Meanwhile in this interglacial things broke early on and the planet has literally plunged back into glacial temperatures and has been stuck there for over 11,000 years.

Not sure why I am not surprised, as always ignore the science and attack the one that delivers it and question them and not the data.

 

[Mushroom]

Regarding past warm periods, I’ve never denied they existed. The Roman or Medieval Warm Periods occurred regionally

Ahhh, here we go again.

They were not Regional, and neither were the cool periods regional. Those were global also.

This is another thing about the Church of Global Warming that pisses me off. They will absolutely distort the science because they think doing so will make their viewpoint seem stronger. And for the last several years I have seen many try to push that "regional" crap, or even more recently trying to claim that those events or the Little Ice Age did not even exist at all.

No, all I am seeing is yet another that is proselytizing for their religion.

 

[Mushroom]

What is the net CO2 left after green plants remove it and convert it toO2

And how much of the current increase in CO2 caused by the plant matter trapped in tundra and permafrost that is only now finally being able to start to decay after being stuck in the freezer for over 100,000 years?

 

[DukeU]

I don't debate the science. I don't need to. Here's why.

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused. Every national academy of sciences. Every major university. Researchers across every continent, including countries that agree on almost nothing else. Thousands of independent teams, different methodologies, different funding sources, arriving at the same conclusion for decades.

To believe this is a hoax, you have to believe all of them are lying and coordinating across borders, languages, political systems, and career incentives. With no meaningful leaks or defections in fifty years.

Or you can believe that the most profitable industry in human history is paying people to create doubt, which isn't even in question by the way. Exxon's own internal research confirmed climate change in the 1970s while they spent forty years funding external denial. That's not speculation. That's court evidence.

Now think about incentives. The average climate scientist makes professor wages if they're lucky. Shares an office with two grad students. Drives a ten year old car. Begs for grant funding. That's your conspirator? That's who's maintaining the greatest scientific fraud in history?

Meanwhile, every scientist on Earth would love to be the one who proves climate change isn't happening. They'd be famous overnight. They'd be in history books. Entire scientific careers are built on proving other scientists wrong. That's literally what peer review is. The incentive structure points in the opposite direction of a conspiracy.

So what's more likely?

A.) Every scientific institution on Earth, thousands of underpaid researchers across every country, all coordinating a lie for no personal benefit with zero defections.

B.) The trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry, which was already caught doing exactly this, spends a fraction of its profits on blogs and talking points to delay regulation.

That's the real Occam's Razor test. One side requires a thousand assumptions. The other requires one. And the one has receipts.

And here's the part almost nobody talks about. The scientific community doesn't even agree on everything within climate science. They argue constantly about timelines, feedback mechanisms, tipping points, regional impacts, model sensitivity. There's fierce internal debate about the details. That's what a healthy scientific ecosystem looks like. What they don't disagree on is whether it's happening and whether humans are driving it. If this were a coordinated lie, they'd all agree on everything. The fact that they fight about the details while agreeing on the fundamentals is what genuine consensus actually looks like. Manufactured consensus is uniform. Real consensus is messy everywhere except at the foundation.

Small conspiracies happen all the time. Five people can fake data. A company can hide a defect. A government can lie about a war for a while, or a murder...

But global, multi-decade, multi-discipline conspiracies are structurally impossible because they require:

perfect information control

perfect incentive alignment

zero whistleblowers

zero rival factions exploiting it

zero prestige seekers breaking ranks for fame.

That combination has literally never existed in human history.

Not for religions, not for empires, not for intelligence agencies, not for the Catholic Church, not for the USSR, not for the NSA. The bigger and longer the system, the more it fractures. Always.
Science is one of the most adversarial human systems ever built. It is explicitly designed to fail conspiracies. Peer review, replication, data sharing, international competition, ideological diversity. It's basically a distributed lie detection engine run by people whose main hobby is proving each other wrong.

If climate change were fake, it wouldn’t require a conspiracy of scientists. It would require the first perfectly functioning global human institution in history.

Everyone on the planet knows the climate changes.

The disagreement comes when you try to sell that humans are causing it.

Curious though.

If there is no hoax involved, why was the name changed from global warming?

 

[Mushroom]

Net CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing

Of course it is, as it should be in a healthy ecosystem.

When biological activities and systems are at their peak, CO2 levels are significantly higher. It is when they are at lows and the ecosystem is not working right that they drop to low levels.

I am curious, do you believe in a dynamic planet that is always changing? Or do you believe it should be permanently locked in say 1900 and remain like that forever and never change?

 

[Mushroom]

If there is no hoax involved, why was the name changed from global warming?

And changed to Global Warming from New Ice Age?

That was not the first time they have done that, the moment the facts do not match their claims, they adjust the facts to fit their claims.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That doesn’t mean the underlying physical claims themselves are suspect.

I think I said that.

 

[DukeU]

Yes, individual studies get retracted. That’s how science works. It’s supposed to self-correct. Retractions, errors, and replication issues are not evidence that the entire field is a hoax. They’re evidence that scientists are human.

LOL

The ENTIRE name was retracted.

 

[ding]

I don't debate the science. I don't need to. Here's why.

You should. Blindly accepting anything is dumb.

 

[ding]

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

The question isn't whether the planet is warming or not, it is. The question is how much of the warming is due to an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2. And to answer that question the logical starting point is the theoretical calculations from the physics of radiative forcing. Do you know what that is? Would you be surprised to hear that it is 1C per doubling of CO2? Does this seem like a lot to you? Because it's not. So how do you explain the IPCC's projections of 3.5 to 4.5 times this value?

 

[Hafar1014]

And how much of the current increase in CO2 caused by the plant matter trapped in tundra and permafrost that is only now finally being able to start to decay after being stuck in the freezer for over 100,000 years?

None since CO2 is .042 % of the atmosphere. What increase.

 

[Hafar1014]

Everyone on the planet knows the climate changes.

The disagreement comes when you try to sell that humans are causing it.

Curious though.

If there is no hoax involved, why was the name changed from global warming?

Mo warming had occured

 

[Mushroom]

None since CO2 is .042 % of the atmosphere. What increase.

Actually, the amount is both enormous, and largely insignificant.

As in around 2 billion tons of carbon per year.

Now that does indeed sound like a hell of a lot. Until one realizes that the atmosphere of the planet is around 5.5 quadrillion tons.

That is 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons. When talking about volumes that large, it become easy to see that a mere 2,000,000,000 is an insignificant amount.

Kinda like those that scream about the possibility of of a catastrophe of one of the Antarctic Ice Shelves breaking away and causing huge sea level rises.

That shows doubly how scientifically illiterate they are. As there is not only in excess of 320 million cubic miles of ocean on the planet, they also completely fail to understand the concept of displacement.

Although, granted that is a rather new scientific theory. And has only been known for just over 2,000 years now.

 

[Anomalism]

Is this the warmest period since the LGM? Is this or is this not the fastest period of warming seen since the LGM?

Come on now, you seem to have me confused with somebody else, those I just posited are rather simple. Is this the warmest time in the past 12,000 years? How about the past 5,000 years? The past 2,000 years? The past 1,000 years?

You once again skirt and avoid answering and attempt to put this all back on me and my beliefs. That is not it at all.

Do you deny that this interglacial the coldest known in over 2.5 million years?

Once again, a simply yes or no.

Do you deny that in every single interglacial on record that sea levels were significantly higher than they are in this one?

Yes, I made true statements. But I do not "jump to conclusions" at all. You seem upset that I am not jumping to your conclusions.

Yes, the Eemian was only "1-2 degrees warmer", but that was also on average, and for a period of over 15,000 years. Meanwhile in this interglacial things broke early on and the planet has literally plunged back into glacial temperatures and has been stuck there for over 11,000 years.

Not sure why I am not surprised, as always ignore the science and attack the one that delivers it and question them and not the data.

You’re conflating a list of facts with a causal argument. Stating that past interglacials were warmer or that sea levels were higher does not automatically lead to any conclusion about current or future climate risk. The climate system is complex, and context matters. Duration, geographic distribution, global versus regional trends, feedback loops, and human forcings all change the implications. Simply citing past warmth or sea levels without addressing these factors is not a scientific argument; it’s selective framing. Presenting true statements doesn’t automatically prove your broader claim about the meaning or danger of current warming.

Moreover, your insistence on yes or no answers ignores nuance in the data. Climate science doesn’t deal in absolutes; it evaluates probabilities, trends, and mechanisms. By demanding simple answers while dismissing context, you turn discussion into a forced dichotomy. Your interpretation versus my “beliefs,” rather than engaging with the underlying science. Your approach reads less like analysis and more like assertion. It’s about asserting a narrative, not interrogating the data or the mechanisms that actually matter.

 

[Anomalism]

Ahhh, here we go again.

They were not Regional, and neither were the cool periods regional. Those were global also.

This is another thing about the Church of Global Warming that pisses me off. They will absolutely distort the science because they think doing so will make their viewpoint seem stronger. And for the last several years I have seen many try to push that "regional" crap, or even more recently trying to claim that those events or the Little Ice Age did not even exist at all.

No, all I am seeing is yet another that is proselytizing for their religion.

What you’re doing here is turning a well known scientific nuance into a straw man. Saying the Roman or Medieval warm periods were primarily regional does not mean they didn’t exist or that scientists deny them. It means exactly what the data shows. The magnitude and timing of those warm and cool phases were not globally synchronous in the way modern warming is. Some regions warmed earlier, some later, some barely at all. That’s not distorting science; it’s literally what paleoclimate reconstructions from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, and corals consistently show. Global averages for those periods are much smaller and more uneven than today.

The deeper issue is that you’re treating “global” as a binary label instead of a quantitative one. Yes, there were hemispheric scale patterns in the Medieval and Roman periods, but they do not show a coherent, simultaneous, planet wide temperature increase comparable to the post industrial trend. Modern warming shows up across continents and oceans at the same time, with a clear energy imbalance in the system. Calling that difference religion is just rhetoric to avoid engaging with scale, synchronization, and mechanism, which are exactly the things science actually cares about. You’re arguing against a caricature of climate science, not what the field actually claims.

 

[Anomalism]

Everyone on the planet knows the climate changes.

The disagreement comes when you try to sell that humans are causing it.

Curious though.

If there is no hoax involved, why was the name changed from global warming?

The name change reflected a more precise understanding of the science. “Global warming” emphasizes average surface temperature, while “climate change” captures a broader set of effects - shifting precipitation, ocean circulation changes, ice melt, extreme weather, and regional variability. It’s a terminology update to better describe what the data actually shows, not a conspiracy.

 

[Anomalism]

Of course it is, as it should be in a healthy ecosystem.

When biological activities and systems are at their peak, CO2 levels are significantly higher. It is when they are at lows and the ecosystem is not working right that they drop to low levels.

I am curious, do you believe in a dynamic planet that is always changing? Or do you believe it should be permanently locked in say 1900 and remain like that forever and never change?

Yes, the Earth’s climate and ecosystems are always changing. But the problem isn’t change itself; it’s the rate and magnitude of change caused by human emissions. Natural cycles occur over thousands to millions of years, giving ecosystems time to adapt. What we’re seeing now is unprecedented in speed, and the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is driving measurable effects. Accepting a dynamic planet doesn’t negate that human activity is altering its balance.

 

[Anomalism]

The question isn't whether the planet is warming or not, it is. The question is how much of the warming is due to an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2. And to answer that question the logical starting point is the theoretical calculations from the physics of radiative forcing. Do you know what that is? Would you be surprised to hear that it is 1C per doubling of CO2? Does this seem like a lot to you? Because it's not. So how do you explain the IPCC's projections of 3.5 to 4.5 times this value?

The 1C per doubling of CO2 you’re referring to is the direct radiative forcing, which is a simplified physics calculation for an atmosphere with no feedbacks. That number alone doesn’t capture the full climate response. The IPCC’s higher projections incorporate feedbacks in the climate system, like increased water vapor, changes in cloud cover, ice albedo effects, and ocean heat absorption, all of which amplify the initial warming.

It’s not a contradiction of physics; it’s an application of it to a complex, interacting system. The raw radiative forcing is just the starting point. The models show that when the Earth system reacts as a whole, the net warming can be several times larger than the no feedback estimate.

 

[ding]

The 1C per doubling of CO2 you’re referring to is the direct radiative forcing, which is a simplified physics calculation for an atmosphere with no feedbacks.

Correct. And given that the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 1000 ppm, there are no climate feedbacks. Not to mention only 44% of the entire atmosphere of the GHG effect is realized at the surface because of convective currents.

While GHGs trap infrared radiation, convection (along with evaporation) moves that heat upward from the surface. Without convection, surface temperatures would be significantly higher.

Convection acts as a "short-circuit" for the full potential warming, acting as a cooling mechanism that balances the radiative heating at the surface.

Convection is a key atmospheric mechanism that restricts the ultimate surface temperature rise caused by increased greenhouse gases, preventing an even warmer climate.

 

[ding]

That number alone doesn’t capture the full climate response.

Actually it does. And even then only 44% of the GHG effect affects surface temperatures because convective currents whisks that heat away.