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

[ding]

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.

Do you know what assumptions they use and how feedback is determined?

And no, there is no feedback that amplifies warming much less equal to 3.5 to 4.5 times the immediate radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[ding]

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.

It's flawed assumptions coupled with a woefully inadequate rudimentary model of a highly complex system.

How is it possible the planet cooled for millions of years with elevated levels of CO2 if the climate is sensitive to CO2?

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

CO2 is not a pollutant does not warm the earth and we need more

 

[Mushroom]

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.

When every interglacial stretching back over two and a half million years was significantly warmer and had sea levels significantly higher than they are today, are you actually even attempting to make the claim that we should ignore them?

The freaking deposit of limestone under Miami is in total about three miles deep. In multiple layers where each is on average around 20 meters thick. Except for the layers which should be deposited there now, as quite clearly unlike in all of the previous interglacials Miami is quite obviously above sea level.

I am not "conflating a list of facts", I am stating the clear and obvious fact. This interglacial is not hotter than ever, it's significantly colder than any on record.

This is a clear chart of the last 4 interglacials, and as can be seen that other than the Bølling-Allerød interstadial and the Holocene Climate Optimum, we are still at barely above ice age temperatures. And our current temperatures are significantly lower than even the coldest interglacial in the last half million years.

Tell me, if I hit 50 people in the head with a sledgehammer, and they all die, what makes number 51 so magical that they are expected to take the same blow and live? This is literally the same kind of logic you are demanding that others follow. Absolutely rejecting millions of years of past history, because you want to believe this is somehow different.

Tell me, are you also one of those that worries about the Earth becoming another Venus if we do not stop emissions of CO2 and becoming a runaway greenhouse?

 

[Mushroom]

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.

No, I am not. And no, they were not regional, they were global.

And feel free to look back, a lot of the alarmists have been screaming for years that those previous optimums and minimums simply did not happen. And you are simply repeating their nonsense by saying they were "regional". And of course the fact that they and you will absolutely ignore the fact that they were not regional.

We know for a fact that it was not regional, as the ice sheets in lower South America expanded significantly, just as they did in North America and Europe. That is Magellan had been born a century earlier the Straight named after him would have had a different name. Because at that time it was completely unpassable because of ice. That ice was still present and a significant hazard when he did pass through it.

The effects were global, but because of geography and geology the impacts were different.

To start with, less than 33% of the land on our planet is in the Southern Hemisphere. As opposed to the Northern Hemisphere where 68% of the land rests. That alone is why there is so little apparent records in the Southern Hemisphere. Then you can add in the geology. Of the three Continents in that hemisphere not resting at the pole, only one of them has a significant mountain range. The other two continents do not have any significant mountain ranges, and those are a major factor for glaciation to occur.

The fact that expansions and retreats of the Patagonian Ice Sheet proves those were not regional but global. The only continents that did not see any expansions and contractions of their ice sheets (Africa and Australia) have not had ice sheets in the past 2.5 my to be affected in the first place.

 

[Kruska]

I think you might be underestimating us.

Taking our "factual" Western Leaders actions into account, I see no reason to overestimate them either. aka to be optimistic.

For clarification, none of that means we shouldn't take the science seriously.

Absolutely - indeed only science can get us out of this political dilemma, hopefully scientific/engineering advancements where the industry and politicians can actually "smell" the $$ to be made there-off. e.g. CO2 converters, far more photovoltaic, etc. etc. and not just disputable/questionable EV vehicles.

 

[Hafar1014]

Taking our "factual" Western Leaders actions into account, I see no reason to overestimate them either. aka to be optimistic.

Absolutely - indeed only science can get us out of this dilemma, hopefully scientific/engineering advancements where the industry and politicians can actually "smell" the $$ to be made there-off. e.g. CO2 converters, far more photovoltaic, etc. etc. and not just disputable/questionable EV vehicles.

Nuclear and fossil fuels are the energy answer. There is no climate problem

 

[Anomalism]

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.

View attachment 1217194

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.

You’re correct that convection and evaporation move heat away from the surface, and that’s built into climate models. That doesn’t negate greenhouse forcing. It just changes how that energy is distributed vertically in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity calculations explicitly account for convective heat transfer, ocean mixing, and other energy fluxes when estimating surface warming from CO2.

The fact that CO2 alone produces ~1°C per doubling is the baseline; feedbacks are what drive the higher projected warming in the 3–4.5°C range. Convection doesn’t short circuit the greenhouse effect. It’s part of the system that redistributes energy, but the net effect still results in surface warming consistent with observations over the last century.

 

[Kruska]

Nuclear and fossil fuels are the energy answer. There is no climate problem

Are you just a fool - or you just love to play one?

 

[Anomalism]

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

1°C per CO2 doubling is the radiative forcing without feedbacks, so in that sense it does capture the baseline response of the climate system. Convection and evaporation move much of that energy upward, which is why only a fraction directly impacts surface temperatures. Feedbacks modify the total warming, but the underlying forcing is still rooted in the physics of greenhouse gases. The point is that convection redistributes heat. It doesn’t eliminate the effect, and when combined with feedbacks, it aligns with observed warming trends.

 

[Mushroom]

CO2 is not a pollutant does not warm the earth and we need more

I am well aware of that. And yes, we indeed need a hell of a lot more.

The carbon cycle during ice ages and interglacials actually is known. When the glaciation starts, it changes the areas that will be covered by icecaps first into tundra, then permafrost. At that point freezing all biomatter under ice and halting decomposition. Where it will remain for somewhere around 100 ky until it thaws. At which point it will finally start to decompose, releasing large amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that will push even more warming. Where eventually something pushed things the other way once again and another ice age starts.

And this has been repeating over and over for over 2.5 million years.

One area in North America that this can clearly be seen in is the Great Plains. In a lot of the US, bedrock can be found damned near on the surface down to around 50 feet. This is especially common in the northern parts of the country where repeated glaciation have been removing the soil for millions of years, only allowing 20-30,000 years of soil to accumulate before the next glacial cycle obliterates it all over again.

That is, other than the Great Plains. Which during the glacial maximum there is no ice sheet, that area is permafrost or tundra. So when the ice sheets melt, other than erosion primarily from water they evolve once again into grasslands. Grasslands that are on top of in some places almost a kilometer of such beds. That is how deep the bedrock is in much of that region, as compared to say New York where in much of the city you can actually walk on the bedrock itself.

I think what confuses so many is that in reality, I have almost zero interest in "climate". I know it changes, it has always changed and will always change. My interest is in geology. And I find the complete ignoring of the past in the geological record completely perplexing. And they refuse to discuss it, and will try to pretend it is of no matter.

Kinda like I find it perplexing that they ignore the proof of extensive fires in areas like the Mediterranean, Australia and Western North America. Really the only places on the planet that have so damned many pyrophytes evolved. If one believes in the theories of Darwin and others, such evolutionary adaptations could only arise and come to dominate if the conditions for such are not only common but give those species an evolutionary advantage.

But notice, how when I bring up the huge numbers of pyrophytes, they are simply dismissed with a toss of the wrist. Once again, an inconvenient truth they want to ignore because it does not match their beliefs.

And here is one of the really ironic things, my oldest son is a Fireman.

But no, he is almost never called up to put out fires. That only happens on a few rare occasions. Most of the time he acts like a Fireman in Fahrenheit 451, because he starts fires.

He mostly works in California, where they go into places like Yosemite. Go in and actually start fires, that they then control to not only clear out some of the underbrush, but to allow the Sequoias and other trees in the region that require fires to procreate to actually make new trees.

Because if the fires that we are seeing are all caused by humans and "Global Warming", how in the hell did most of the trees in the area develop such an insanely perverse evolutionary requirement where they actually need fire to reproduce?

 

[Anomalism]

Do you know what assumptions they use and how feedback is determined?

And no, there is no feedback that amplifies warming much less equal to 3.5 to 4.5 times the immediate radiative forcing of CO2.

Assumptions about feedbacks aren’t arbitrary. They are based on decades of observational data. Water vapor amplifies warming because warmer air holds more moisture, which is itself a greenhouse gas. Ice-albedo feedback accelerates melting as reflective surfaces shrink. Ocean heat uptake and cloud dynamics are measured and parameterized from real world observations. Individually and together, these feedbacks account for the difference between the basic radiative forcing and the higher multi degree projections. The amplification is not a guess. It’s an emergent property of the coupled climate system as captured in both models and historical paleoclimate records.

 

[Anomalism]

It's flawed assumptions coupled with a woefully inadequate rudimentary model of a highly complex system.

How is it possible the planet cooled for millions of years with elevated levels of CO2 if the climate is sensitive to CO2?

The fact that the planet cooled for millions of years despite elevated CO2 doesn’t contradict CO2 forcing. It highlights that climate is influenced by multiple interacting factors. Orbital cycles, continental positions, ocean circulation, volcanic activity, and solar output all strongly affect global temperatures. CO2 is a forcing that modulates climate, but it’s not the sole driver. During those long periods, other factors, like reduced solar insolation in key regions or shifts in ocean heat transport, overrode the warming effect of CO2.

Today, however, we’re seeing CO2 rise rapidly on top of conditions that naturally wouldn’t produce such a fast warming trend. That unprecedented speed and magnitude of increase interacts with existing feedbacks to amplify warming. So while elevated CO2 alone doesn’t guarantee warming in every context, the combination of rapid anthropogenic emissions with these feedbacks creates the unprecedented climate response we’re observing.

 

[Mushroom]

You’re correct that convection and evaporation move heat away from the surface, and that’s built into climate models.

The climate models are a joke.

Tell you what, go back and find the actual report from an actual climate model thirty years ago. And tell me how close it was to actually predicting what the climate is currently.

Or better yet, take a blind data set from any time in the past and plug it into those models. And see how close it comes to actually predicting the climate of the historical record that followed.

Replicating your findings is an absolute first step of any kind of science if it is going to be taken seriously. And these are two that should be obvious but I have never seen done.

Or even better, what caused any of the climate optimums and minimums in the past 12 ky. The simple fact is, nobody knows. And we know for a fact the climate changed radically and abruptly in under five decades. Because the planet went from one of the warmest periods in the past 5,000 years to one of the coldest where glaciers once again started expanding on five continents.

And that was within a human lifetime. That was how fast and radically things changed from the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Hell, I still often laugh when I bring up the fact that the youngest glacier known on the planet is less than 50 years old and still growing.

 

[Mushroom]

The fact that the planet cooled for millions of years despite elevated CO2 doesn’t contradict CO2 forcing.

Tell me, do you even known when that happened? Or are you simply contradicting what was said without even knowing the timeframe that is being discussed?

 

[Anomalism]

When every interglacial stretching back over two and a half million years was significantly warmer and had sea levels significantly higher than they are today, are you actually even attempting to make the claim that we should ignore them?

The freaking deposit of limestone under Miami is in total about three miles deep. In multiple layers where each is on average around 20 meters thick. Except for the layers which should be deposited there now, as quite clearly unlike in all of the previous interglacials Miami is quite obviously above sea level.

I am not "conflating a list of facts", I am stating the clear and obvious fact. This interglacial is not hotter than ever, it's significantly colder than any on record.

This is a clear chart of the last 4 interglacials, and as can be seen that other than the Bølling-Allerød interstadial and the Holocene Climate Optimum, we are still at barely above ice age temperatures. And our current temperatures are significantly lower than even the coldest interglacial in the last half million years.

Tell me, if I hit 50 people in the head with a sledgehammer, and they all die, what makes number 51 so magical that they are expected to take the same blow and live? This is literally the same kind of logic you are demanding that others follow. Absolutely rejecting millions of years of past history, because you want to believe this is somehow different.

Tell me, are you also one of those that worries about the Earth becoming another Venus if we do not stop emissions of CO2 and becoming a runaway greenhouse?

You’re presenting historical interglacial temperatures and sea levels as if they dictate what must happen now, but that’s not how climate risk works. Past interglacials happened under very different boundary conditions. Observing that temperatures were higher in the past doesn’t negate the fact that today’s rapid CO2 increase is unprecedented in speed and magnitude, nor does it mean future warming and sea level rise are impossible or negligible.

The analogy with repeated sledgehammer blows is misleading. Climate isn’t deterministic in the same way. Each interglacial isn’t a fixed “blow” but the result of multiple interacting factors. Current CO2 levels, industrial emissions, and feedback mechanisms are pushing the system into a range that hasn’t existed for millions of years. It’s this combination of unusual speed, human forcing, and feedbacks that creates risk, even if absolute temperatures today are still below some past interglacials.

 

[ding]

CO2 is not a pollutant does not warm the earth and we need more

Yes, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all of life on this planet depends upon.

Denying CO2 has an impact on surface temperatures is idiotic and hurts the opposition to AGW.

Yes, the planet needs more atmospheric CO2 as the last glacial period came dangerously close to extinguishing all life on the planet because of too low of CO2.

 

[Hafar1014]

Yes, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all of life on this planet depends upon.

Denying CO2 has an impact on surface temperatures is idiotic and hurts the opposition to AGW.

Yes, the planet needs more atmospheric CO2 as the last glacial period came dangerously close to extinguishing all life on the planet because of too low of CO2.

It has no impact on temperature. Green plants convert it to O2 faster than we can produce it.

 

[Anomalism]

No, I am not. And no, they were not regional, they were global.

And feel free to look back, a lot of the alarmists have been screaming for years that those previous optimums and minimums simply did not happen. And you are simply repeating their nonsense by saying they were "regional". And of course the fact that they and you will absolutely ignore the fact that they were not regional.

We know for a fact that it was not regional, as the ice sheets in lower South America expanded significantly, just as they did in North America and Europe. That is Magellan had been born a century earlier the Straight named after him would have had a different name. Because at that time it was completely unpassable because of ice. That ice was still present and a significant hazard when he did pass through it.

The effects were global, but because of geography and geology the impacts were different.

To start with, less than 33% of the land on our planet is in the Southern Hemisphere. As opposed to the Northern Hemisphere where 68% of the land rests. That alone is why there is so little apparent records in the Southern Hemisphere. Then you can add in the geology. Of the three Continents in that hemisphere not resting at the pole, only one of them has a significant mountain range. The other two continents do not have any significant mountain ranges, and those are a major factor for glaciation to occur.

The fact that expansions and retreats of the Patagonian Ice Sheet proves those were not regional but global. The only continents that did not see any expansions and contractions of their ice sheets (Africa and Australia) have not had ice sheets in the past 2.5 my to be affected in the first place.

I understand that the past warm and cool periods had global footprints, but the nuance I was emphasizing is that their intensity and impacts varied regionally. Saying the Roman or Medieval warm periods were more pronounced in certain areas doesn’t deny their existence elsewhere or dismiss them. It’s simply acknowledging that the climate system is heterogeneous. Different continents and hemispheres experienced these periods differently due to ocean currents, altitude, and land distribution.

Global patterns don’t equate to uniform effects everywhere. Even if the southern hemisphere saw smaller changes due to less landmass and fewer mountain ranges, the term “regional” in scientific discussion often refers to where warming or cooling was most pronounced relative to the global average. Recognizing that distinction doesn’t diminish the evidence or importance of these historical periods.

 

[ding]

No, I am not. And no, they were not regional, they were global.

And feel free to look back, a lot of the alarmists have been screaming for years that those previous optimums and minimums simply did not happen. And you are simply repeating their nonsense by saying they were "regional". And of course the fact that they and you will absolutely ignore the fact that they were not regional.

We know for a fact that it was not regional, as the ice sheets in lower South America expanded significantly, just as they did in North America and Europe. That is Magellan had been born a century earlier the Straight named after him would have had a different name. Because at that time it was completely unpassable because of ice. That ice was still present and a significant hazard when he did pass through it.

The effects were global, but because of geography and geology the impacts were different.

To start with, less than 33% of the land on our planet is in the Southern Hemisphere. As opposed to the Northern Hemisphere where 68% of the land rests. That alone is why there is so little apparent records in the Southern Hemisphere. Then you can add in the geology. Of the three Continents in that hemisphere not resting at the pole, only one of them has a significant mountain range. The other two continents do not have any significant mountain ranges, and those are a major factor for glaciation to occur.

The fact that expansions and retreats of the Patagonian Ice Sheet proves those were not regional but global. The only continents that did not see any expansions and contractions of their ice sheets (Africa and Australia) have not had ice sheets in the past 2.5 my to be affected in the first place.

People don't understand how and why the northern hemisphere effects the entire planet; oceans and atmosphere. But the data is overwhelming. The south pole has had an ice cap for the past 12 million years but it's temperature fluctuated as the northern hemisphere glaciated and deglaciated.