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

[Anomalism]

Actually saying... the earth cooled for millions of years with elevated CO2 levels because geophysical and orbital processes counteracted the greenhouse forcing but these same geophysical and orbital processes won't counteract greenhouse forcing today with significantly less CO2... is extremely dumb.

You're treating geophysical and orbital processes as a single, constant background force, when in reality they are not only slow, they are state dependent. Their effect depends on continental configuration, ocean gateways, ice sheet geometry, and solar geometry, all of which were radically different in deep time and are effectively fixed right now. In the past, those boundary conditions were actively changing and could drive long term cooling even under high CO2. Today they are not changing in any meaningful way on human timescales. So the premise that “the same processes should cancel CO2 now” is false. The processes exist, but the drivers of those processes are not moving.

You’re also ignoring the most basic concept in dynamics: rate matters. A slow negative forcing spread over millions of years can offset a greenhouse background. A rapid positive forcing injected in a century cannot be neutralized by mechanisms that operate on 20,000–100,000+ year cycles. That’s literally how differential equations work. You’re comparing a thermostat that adjusts once every 50,000 years to someone cranking the heater to max in real time and saying “well the thermostat exists, so the heater can’t matter.”

 

[Mushroom]

You’re presenting historical interglacial temperatures and sea levels as if they dictate what must happen now

Then what is so absolutely magical about this interglacial that makes you seem to believe what we are experiencing is above the norm instead of below the norm?

Look, do you believe in science or not? Because you keep contradicting the geological record with everything you try and say. And just repeating the same old tired clichés like "unprecedented", which are only used to try and get an emotional response and are absolutely incorrect.

CO2 rise has been much higher and faster multiple times in the recent geological past. Yet you ignore it and just make empty statements.

 

[ding]

What that quote is really saying, once you strip the academic fog, is just “models are calibrated.” Which…yes. That’s not a scandal, that’s literally how modeling works in every field that deals with complex systems. You calibrate on known data, then test whether the model reproduces independent phenomena. Climate models are not judged solely on “does the global mean line up with the 20th century” they’re judged on whether they simultaneously get hundreds of physically independent features right. A model can be forced to match one curve by cheating, but it cannot simultaneously reproduce Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming, ocean heat uptake, glacier retreat, ENSO statistics, and volcanic cooling unless the underlying physics is roughly correct.

The deeper flaw in their argument is logical, not technical. They’re claiming models assume all warming is from CO2, but attribution studies explicitly do the opposite experiment. You run models with only natural forcings and they fail to reproduce post-1950 warming. You add anthropogenic forcing and they succeed. That’s not backfitting a narrative, that’s causal testing. If natural variability alone were sufficient, the natural only runs would already match observations and CO2 would be unnecessary. They don’t. So the accusation that feedbacks are inflated because “all warming is assumed anthropogenic” is backwards. The conclusion that most recent warming is anthropogenic comes after natural drivers are included and still fall short. They’re mistaking “calibration exists” for “calibration proves nothing,” which is basically saying no complex physical model can ever be trusted, a position that would also delete weather forecasts, satellite orbits, fluid dynamics, and most of modern engineering along with climate science.

What post # 296 is saying is what I have been saying. They assume all warming is from CO2 which is corroborated by this graphic:

That despite overwhelming data which shows large climatic variations prior to the industrial revolution and a warming trend that began 400 years ago - which could have only been caused by natural causes - their models assume all warming is due to an incremental 120 ppm of CO2.

And that models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

 

[ding]

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

Science is not your strong suit. ~50% of what man has emitted has remained in the atmosphere if you ignore CO2 released by the oceans. Which according to crossplots is a good assumption.

 

[Anomalism]

Science is not your strong suit.

Would you look at that? We can agree on something. Lol

 

[Anomalism]

What post # 296 is saying is what I have been saying. They assume all warming is from CO2 which is corroborated by this graphic:

View attachment 1217267

That despite overwhelming data which shows large climatic variations prior to the industrial revolution and a warming trend that began 400 years ago - which could have only been caused by natural causes - their models assume all warming is due to an incremental 120 ppm of CO2.

And that models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

What you keep calling an assumption is actually a misreading of what the models are doing. They do not start with "all warming is from CO2” and then tune everything around that. They start with measured forcings. The key point you keep sliding past is that the “warming trend that began 400 years ago” is already included in those natural forcings. That’s exactly why attribution studies run two experiments: one with natural forcings only, and one with natural + anthropogenic. If natural variability were sufficient, the natural only runs would match modern observations. They don’t. They reproduce early variability reasonably well and then diverge sharply after mid-20th century. The divergence is the signal. No assumption is needed. The failure of natural only physics to explain recent warming is itself the evidence.

The calibration argument also collapses under basic logic. Every serious physical model is calibrated on known data. Calibration does not invalidate causality unless you can show the model only fits one curve and fails everywhere else. Climate models don’t. They simultaneously reproduce stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming, Arctic amplification, ocean heat uptake, glacier mass loss, volcanic cooling pulses, and paleoclimate transitions. You can’t fake that by assuming CO2 dominance; those are independent fingerprints that emerge from the same radiative physics. The position you’re defending isn’t “models might be imperfect” That’s trivially true. It’s “no complex system can ever be causally attributed” which would nuke half of modern science along with climate. At that point it’s not skepticism anymore, it’s epistemological nihilism.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

And I honestly fear for the next glacial cycle when it arrives.

Our CO2 levels and temperatures are still just barely above ice age levels. And if that does not change very soon (geologically speaking), then the next glacial event may very well be the largest extinction level event the planet has seen in 65 million years.

By this point in an interglacial, the Arctic Ice Cap should be seasonal at best, and there should be no more large accumulations of ice in the region. But that is not the case, and if the baseline when the glaciation starts is still like this, then the next will probably be the coldest since the Cryogenian.

Forget the ice sheets stopping at right around the US-Canada Border and somewhere in Belgium and Northern Germany in Europe. In North America it might well extend down into Tennessee, and in Europe all the way south to the Alps.

Just consider the above chart and what that would mean. The ice free Arctic and most of Florida being underwater? That was the conditions when the last Ice Age started. And it saw Florida and the Caribbean look like this.

Now imagine an ice age starting with sea levels and temperatures as they are now. Forget being almost able to see Cuba from Florida, you will likely be able to walk to it. Possibly even the Yucatan Peninsula as the Gulf of Mexico might turn into a repeat of the Messinian Salinity Crisis.

Starting a new ice age with temperatures 3 degrees or lower Celsius than previous ones would make the temperatures fall right off the bottom of the above charts.

 

[Mushroom]

Climate scientists routinely test their models against paleoclimate and modern records.

Uh-huh. And where are the published results when held in a blind study?

I did not just say "test", I have seen so damned much manipulation of data and models that I no longer trust them. That is why I said a blind test. Because that is the only way to make sure the claims really are accurate.

 

[ding]

What you keep calling an assumption is actually a misreading of what the models are doing. They do not start with "all warming is from CO2” and then tune everything around that. They start with measured forcings. The key point you keep sliding past is that the “warming trend that began 400 years ago” is already included in those natural forcings. That’s exactly why attribution studies run two experiments: one with natural forcings only, and one with natural + anthropogenic. If natural variability were sufficient, the natural only runs would match modern observations. They don’t. They reproduce early variability reasonably well and then diverge sharply after mid-20th century. The divergence is the signal. No assumption is needed. The failure of natural only physics to explain recent warming is itself the evidence.

The calibration argument also collapses under basic logic. Every serious physical model is calibrated on known data. Calibration does not invalidate causality unless you can show the model only fits one curve and fails everywhere else. Climate models don’t. They simultaneously reproduce stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming, Arctic amplification, ocean heat uptake, glacier mass loss, volcanic cooling pulses, and paleoclimate transitions. You can’t fake that by assuming CO2 dominance; those are independent fingerprints that emerge from the same radiative physics. The position you’re defending isn’t “models might be imperfect” That’s trivially true. It’s “no complex system can ever be causally attributed” which would nuke half of modern science along with climate. At that point it’s not skepticism anymore, it’s epistemological nihilism.

Great. Then show me the natural warming on THEIR graphic.

 

[Oddball]

Great. Then show me the natural warming on THEIR graphic.

View attachment 1217279

Prepare for the goalposts to move.

 

[ding]

Every serious physical model is calibrated on known data.

Yes, but their assumption was all incremental warming was from incremental CO2. It's literally a self fulfilling prophecy that overstates feedback. They have two unknowns (natural and CO2) and only one set of data (i.e. warming). So they have to split the warming between two buckets; CO2 and natural. But they didn't do that. They attributed it all to CO2. Which is why that's what their model is spitting out.

The way they should have done it was to attribute the KNOWN warming from CO2 - it's direct radiative forcing - then attribute the rest of the warming to natural causes.

You keep failing to understand that their model only has the ability to follow how it was calibrated and it was calibrated improperly. It was calibrated to assign all warming to CO2.

 

[DukeU]

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.

Yes it did.

It reflects an understanding that GW numbers were manipulated.

In other words, it was a lie.

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Caught Manipulating Temperature …​

 

[Mushroom]

It reflects an understanding that GW numbers were manipulated.

In other words, it was a lie.

Hence, the constant appearance of the "Hockey Stick".

If there is an appearance of that in almost anything, either something really bizarre happened, or the data that was used was manipulated to hell and back.

Or there was simply no correlation in the first place, but they want to make people think there is.

 

[Stryder50]

Whether someone drives a car, uses A/C, or has solar panels has zero bearing on the reliability of decades of independent measurements and global research. Personal behavior doesn’t determine truth.

Personal behavior determines if you believe in the quackery you peddle as "truth" or are just another troll, phony, and shill for pravda.
Actions should match words.
Walk the walk you talk.

Clicking on your user name and then on your "Profile" tab and getting the following is a 90+% evidence of a troll, phony, fraud, and/or coward.
...

Oops! We ran into some problems.​

This member limits who may view their full profile.

 

[Stryder50]

Climate change research is all fake. They use insignificant correlations and predictions that never come true. It drives the green energy industrial complex that is now in decline in America but is destroying the economies in Europe. Any research that opposes the human cause of climate change will never be funded. Renewable energy cant eet the demand of AI and data centers cost too much and is unreliable. Manufacturers are leaving Europe to come to America which is now using nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind turbines have been canceled all over the country. In 10 years they will all be scrap. The green energy movement is in decline now as it has failed in the worst way. Its only supported by toxic ideology

Excuse and forgive my quibble here, but NATURAL Climate Change is real and been happening ever since Earth got a "climate".

Human caused Climate Change; i.e. Anthropogenic Climate Change(ACC)/Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) appears to be fake ~ Fraud.

 

[ding]

And I honestly fear for the next glacial cycle when it arrives.

I do too. Never before has our planet been configured for colder temperatures like it is now (thermally isolated polar regions) with surrounding lands in the northern hemisphere for extensive continental glaciation.

The trend of a cooling planet is so obvious that it shocks me that they are ignoring it. The last 4 glacial periods have been extremely cold. It does seem to be trending that way. It doesn't take any special ability to spot this trend. It's right there in the data.

 

[Stryder50]

You keep pointing to Ioannidis and retractions as evidence that all climate research is invalid. That’s a misinterpretation. Yes, some studies are flawed or later corrected, that’s how science works. Self-correction, debate, and re-evaluation are features, not evidence of a conspiracy or fraud. Individual errors don’t invalidate thousands of independent measurements, cross-checked models, and global data.

Insisting that all research is fake because some findings are refuted is a logical circle: it treats nuance and uncertainty as proof of a global hoax. We’ve already addressed this, pointing to publication issues or failed predictions repeatedly doesn’t create new evidence, it just recycles the same argument in a loop.

If your goal is to challenge the science, the burden is to point to specific, reproducible evidence that humans aren’t affecting the climate, not to cite generalized concerns about research reliability.

TLDR: You're going in circles now.

You keep misinterpreting what others say.
You should redo your basic English and reading comprehension classes.

 

[Stryder50]

You're labeling everything I say with debate terminology without actually engaging with the substance underneath. That's not a rebuttal. That's avoidance with formatting.

My analogy wasn't equating policy with physics. It was illustrating that implementation failures don't invalidate underlying data. If you understood that and still called it a false equivalence, you're being dishonest. If you didn't understand that, the analogy stands.

On independence: you're conflating political coordination with scientific methodology. Governments can coordinate policy. They cannot coordinate thousands of independent researchers across competing nations to produce identical fake measurements for decades with zero defections. Those are structurally different claims and treating them as the same is the actual false equivalence in this conversation.

The Oregon Petition included dentists, engineers, and anyone with a science-adjacent bachelor's degree. Comparing that to active climate researchers publishing peer-reviewed work is like comparing everyone who's held a steering wheel to NASCAR drivers.

East Anglia produced embarrassing emails. Multiple independent investigations cleared the researchers of data manipulation. The science was reproduced by other teams. If your position is that embarrassing emails invalidate all of climate science, then every institution that's ever had an internal scandal, which is all of them, produces no valid work. That standard destroys all human knowledge, not just climate science.

And "there is NO science" isn't an argument. It's a conclusion framed as a starting point. Declaring the entire enterprise a sham while refusing to engage with any specific piece of it is exactly the circular pattern I have mentioned already.

So far, nothing you have said has been backed-up with data or objective sources(links - URLs) to refer to.
All we get is your "word for it" and we are seeing you have no bona fides to present and therefore are a rather erudite troll, but not a credible source.

 

[Mushroom]

I encourage people to watch the following video. It discusses many of the things I see in all areas when it comes to manipulation of data.



This is why every time I see things like "Per Capita" used in a chart, I immediately want to dismiss it unless there is a hell of a good reason to consider the chart where that makes some kind of sense in comparison to the data.

And this is also something I have seen first hand. Back in the 1980s I was the Maintenance Chief for my Battalion. And as such, on a daily basis I had to assemble and analyze hundreds of pages of reports and data, and once a week make up a "snapshot" view that would tell the Battalion Commander everything he wanted to know about the state of maintenance readiness in his unit.

Which was all well and good, until I had a new Maintenance Officer placed above me. And almost immediately he ordered me to completely change how the reports were compiled. The newer reports made everything look just great, but did not give our CO an accurate picture.

About a month and a half later the Colonel met me in the chow hall, and asked me about the status of the unit's maintenance. And I told him honestly what it was like. After lunch he had me report to him with my own report, and I pointed out everything that he really needed to know about our current status.

And every week after that, we would meet at the chow hall for lunch on Tuesday where I would give him my report.

Because the reports were no reflection on me or the Lieutenant that was over me. It simply told him the status of our equipment. If we had five M-60 Machine Guns that were out of service due to worn springs, they could not be used so put on the report. Having machine guns out of service because of normal wear and tear is actually normal and expected. But the CO needs to know these things.

Because if the order came down from Regiment for us to do some kind of operation, I know that so long as the CO knows this he can ask the Regimental CO for special authorization to draw the required parts from another unit or even the Division. But if he does not know that, he would look like an idiot if he told the Regimental Commander everything was good to go, only to then find out a lot of his machine guns did not work.

And yes, one of the changes I was forced to make in the Lieutenant's Report was if a piece of equipment was out of service but the parts required were on order, it did not go on the report. Only items where parts were not available or where they had to be maintained by upper echelon units were reported.

And one item was actually omitted in purpose in his report. In around 1988 the DoD deadlined every single M-2 .50 caliber machine gun in the military due to some having excessive cracks on the bolt. In other words, they were not to be used for any live fire training at all. But if required to use them operationally (actual combat) we could take them to FSSG and have them individually inspected and signed off. But he ordered me to remove them from his report, so the CO would not have known that.

 

[Stryder50]

What post # 296 is saying is what I have been saying. They assume all warming is from CO2 which is corroborated by this graphic:

View attachment 1217267

That despite overwhelming data which shows large climatic variations prior to the industrial revolution and a warming trend that began 400 years ago - which could have only been caused by natural causes - their models assume all warming is due to an incremental 120 ppm of CO2.

And that models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.

H2O is about 2,500 times(at least) the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and often acknowledged as a major GHG (GreenHouse Gas) so where would it place on this chart ?