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

[ding]

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 ?

Great question.

 

[Stryder50]

I never said I know nothing. I said I’m not a climate scientist. That distinction matters if you actually want a productive discussion instead of tossing strawmen around.

As for your latitude and longitude request...

Climate change isn’t a single point on a map. It’s a statistical shift across the globe, ocean temperatures, atmospheric composition, ice mass, and weather patterns. Every major dataset literally comes from millions of geo-tagged measurements. Asking for a single GPS coordinate is a misunderstanding of the field.

If your goal is to challenge the science, the question isn’t “where exactly did it change?” It’s “can you show reproducible data that humans aren’t affecting these global systems?” No one has done that.

Pick a Climate Zone, any Zone;

 

[Stryder50]

Again, Pick a Climate Zone, any Zone;

 

[Stryder50]

Great question.

Thanks.
And IIRC, H2O is THE MAJOR GHG on Earth.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

A blind test isn't really possible with Earth’s climate. There’s only one planet and you can’t randomize it. The functional equivalent in climate science is what’s already done: hindcasting and out of sample testing. Models are built on one set of data, then tested on independent periods, events, and phenomena they weren’t tuned to. That includes volcanic eruptions, ocean heat uptake, Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling, and spatial warming patterns.

If your standard is “nothing counts unless it’s a blind study,” then no physical science could ever satisfy you. That standard isn’t skepticism, it’s an impossible veto. You can’t demand perfect isolation for a system you can’t clone. The evidence already exists in the consistency between independent observations, paleoclimate records, and real-world phenomena.

 

[Stryder50]

All real scientific theories are falsifiable. Tell me what type of experiments can be run to prove or disprove AGW.

For years, these same quacks have been telling us the Arctic Ice will be gone, or the Ocean's will rise X amount over a certain period, all predictions turn out wrong.

Best experiment would be to have one or more large vacuum chambers, filled with gases of Nitrogen(@79%) and Oxygen(@20%), and then introduce the assorted 1% gases*. When inserting CO2 have it at about five degrees warmed than the gases already in the chamber and see if there is any measurable increase in overall temperature.

Note that PPM/ppm = Parts Per Million, one percent is equal to 10,000 ppm. CO2 at 400ppm is only about 1/25th of the "Other Gases". "Other gases" being only 1% of the atmosphere, Dry, content.

This is in regard to Dry Atmosphere, not including water vapor, H2O, which is usually about 10% extra total, globally.

 

[Mushroom]

A blind test isn't really possible with Earth’s climate

Exactly why is it not possible?

You take the data recorded for a period of time, and then have people put that into the models. Then see if the predictions given by the model match the actual conditions during the following time or not.

. Models are built on one set of data, then tested on independent periods, events, and phenomena they weren’t tuned to. That includes volcanic eruptions, ocean heat uptake, Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling, and spatial warming patterns.

From what you are saying, because things are so complex models can not even be used at all, why in the hell have them in the first place?

It's obvious data analysis along with science is not your strong suit.

 

[Anomalism]

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

View attachment 1217279

That graphic isn’t hiding natural warming, it actually shows it, and it shows why human influence is the dominant factor.

The x-axis is radiative forcing relative to 1750, basically how much each factor is pushing Earth’s energy balance toward warming (>0) or cooling (<0).

The rows list drivers: greenhouse gases, aerosols, land-use changes, solar irradiance.

The bars show the estimated effect, with uncertainty ranges.

The bottom section labeled “Natural” includes solar irradiance changes. The bar there is tiny: +0.05 W/m2 [0.00 to 0.10]. That’s the full contribution of natural factors since 1750. Almost negligible.

Compare that to total anthropogenic forcing in 2011: +2.29 W/m2. That’s more than 40 times larger than the natural contribution.

That means...

Natural factors (sun, volcanoes, etc.) have contributed essentially nothing to the observed warming. Almost all of the radiative forcing since the Industrial Revolution comes from CO2, CH4, N2O, and aerosols, human activity.

"Show me the natural warming."

It’s the tiny +0.05 bar. That’s the maximum natural contribution since 1750. Everything else is human-driven.

The graphic confirms that observed warming is overwhelmingly anthropogenic, not natural. The “natural warming” is almost invisible on this scale.

 

[EMH]

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space, trapping heat in the atmosphere

IR is weak EM. O3 Ozone absorbs UV, 10k more powerful.

The "heat trapping" is a phenomenon of all gasses. The "greenhouse gas" narrative is complete BS and proven so by the actual data showing no warming in the atmosphere.


Greenland froze while North America thawed, during the past

1 million
100k
50k
20k
10k

years, take your pick. How did CO2 freeze Greenland and thaw North America at the same time?

IQ over 5 required...

 

[Anomalism]

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.

That’s exactly where you’re misreading what the models do. They don’t just assume all warming is CO2 and then backfill feedbacks. They start with all known forcings and run the model with only natural forcings. That run fails to reproduce the post-1950 warming. Only when you add anthropogenic CO2 does the model match the observed trend. That’s how attribution works: it’s not “assign all warming to CO2,” it’s “remove everything else and see what’s left.” The residual warming isn’t an assumption; it’s the measured shortfall after natural factors are accounted for.

Calibration doesn’t mean the model is pre-set to CO2. It just adjusts tunable parameters within physical constraints to make sure the model behaves realistically across hundreds of observed phenomena. You can’t fake all of those independent signals simultaneously by arbitrarily over-assigning CO2. That’s why the idea that models assign all warming to CO2 is a logical misread, not a factual critique.

 

[Anomalism]

Exactly why is it not possible?

You take the data recorded for a period of time, and then have people put that into the models. Then see if the predictions given by the model match the actual conditions during the following time or not.



From what you are saying, because things are so complex models can not even be used at all, why in the hell have them in the first place?

It's obvious data analysis along with science is not your strong suit.

It’s not that models cannot be used at all; that’s a mischaracterization. Climate models are tools, not crystal balls. The problem with your “blind test” idea is that Earth doesn’t give us multiple independent realizations of the same planet. We only get one timeline. You can’t rerun history with different CO2 levels or orbital parameters in the real world to see what “would have happened.” That’s what makes a truly blind experimental test impossible.

What scientists do instead is the next best thing. They test models on independent phenomena that weren’t part of the calibration. Volcanic eruptions, ENSO events, ocean heat uptake, Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling; these are all natural experiments embedded in Earth’s history. If a model tuned on one set of data can reproduce dozens of independent fingerprints, it passes the practical equivalent of a blind test. It’s not perfect, but it’s rigorous, transparent, and far more predictive than ignoring physics and saying “we can’t test it, so nothing can be trusted."

 

[Anomalism]

IR is weak EM. O3 Ozone absorbs UV, 10k more powerful.

The "heat trapping" is a phenomenon of all gasses. The "greenhouse gas" narrative is complete BS and proven so by the actual data showing no warming in the atmosphere.


Greenland froze while North America thawed, during the past

1 million
100k
50k
20k
10k

years, take your pick. How did CO2 freeze Greenland and thaw North America at the same time?

IQ over 5 required...

Infrared radiation doesn’t need to be “strong” to matter. Its effect is cumulative. CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases absorb IR emitted by the Earth’s surface, slowing the escape of heat to space. That’s been measured in labs and confirmed by satellites. The outgoing spectrum shows exactly the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 are being trapped more than in pre-industrial times. Ozone absorbing UV is a separate process. It protects life from harmful radiation, but it doesn’t replace the greenhouse effect of CO2.

As for regional variations like Greenland vs. North America, that doesn’t contradict CO2 forcing. Local temperature changes are shaped by ocean currents, jet streams, and other atmospheric dynamics. The global average is what CO2 primarily influences, not every patch of land or sea at every moment. You can have Greenland cooling while North America warms temporarily, and it still fits within the physics of radiative forcing plus natural variability. CO2 doesn’t dictate every regional microclimate; it shifts the baseline globally.

 

[Stryder50]

All real scientific theories are falsifiable. Tell me what type of experiments can be run to prove or disprove AGW.

For years, these same quacks have been telling us the Arctic Ice will be gone, or the Ocean's will rise X amount over a certain period, all predictions turn out wrong.

Here's another experiment to consider. I call this the "Bill Nye - Science Guy" at home kitchen test of ACC/AGW.

We'll use basic arithmetic here, Grades K-12; no need for 'Math'. We'll also round off the numbers for simplicity sake.
Start with expressing 400ppm of CO2 to the full atmosphere as a fraction;
400/1,000,000
Reduces to 1/2,500*

Take an empty two liter plastic soda bottle and fill it with two liters of distilled water (H2O) which is at 70 degrees F.
Since 2 liters = 2,000 milliliters (ml) and that is 80% of 2,500, we will add only 80% of one milliliter to this to represent our carbon dioxide/CO2. That is 0.8 ml which if one doesn't have an eyedropper or pipette scaled in milliliters is about one quarter a teaspoon (tsp) which you hopefully have as measuring tool in your kitchen drawer.

The two liters (2,000 ml) of water we fill the bottle with will be at 70 degrees F.
The 0.8ml of warmer water - represents the 400ppm of CO2 - will be at 80 degrees F.
Using one of those infra-red thermometers that one points at their forehead to get body temp. use such to see and record any increase in the temperature of the 2 liters of water that was in the bottle at 70 degrees F.

Get back to us with documented proof that there was a temperature increase of the 2 liters inside the bottle.

What The ACC/AGW hucksters, flim-flam phony's, scammers like Anomalism are trying to pull here is that there would be a noticeable change of increased temperature through out the whole bottle of the cooler water once that warmer(hotter) drop of water is introduced.

This should rest the case that certain "interests" are peddling a pile of snake oil(BS) with their scenario of CO2 causing ACC/AGW.

 

[ding]

That graphic isn’t hiding natural warming, it actually shows it, and it shows why human influence is the dominant factor.

The x-axis is radiative forcing relative to 1750, basically how much each factor is pushing Earth’s energy balance toward warming (>0) or cooling (<0).

The rows list drivers: greenhouse gases, aerosols, land-use changes, solar irradiance.

The bars show the estimated effect, with uncertainty ranges.

The bottom section labeled “Natural” includes solar irradiance changes. The bar there is tiny: +0.05 W/m2 [0.00 to 0.10]. That’s the full contribution of natural factors since 1750. Almost negligible.

Compare that to total anthropogenic forcing in 2011: +2.29 W/m2. That’s more than 40 times larger than the natural contribution.

That means...

Natural factors (sun, volcanoes, etc.) have contributed essentially nothing to the observed warming. Almost all of the radiative forcing since the Industrial Revolution comes from CO2, CH4, N2O, and aerosols, human activity.

"Show me the natural warming."

It’s the tiny +0.05 bar. That’s the maximum natural contribution since 1750. Everything else is human-driven.

The graphic confirms that observed warming is overwhelmingly anthropogenic, not natural. The “natural warming” is almost invisible on this scale.

It's showing what I said it would show based upon how they calibrated their models. Which is no natural warming. They should have added the known warming from CO2 which is the direct radiative forcing from physics and then calibrated the natural parameters to get the match. You want to believe this wasn't a manipulation of the data. I know better. The empirical data from the geologic record shows there is no climate sensitivity to CO2.

 

[Stryder50]

Consensus isn’t science, but neither is saying “I don’t believe it because I don’t like it.” Science is about measurement, replication, and testable hypotheses. Decades of independent temperature records, ice cores, satellite data, and CO2 measurements exist regardless of what anyone believes or what the consensus says. You can reject consensus, but you can’t logically reject the empirical data without showing reproducible evidence to the contrary.

And you continue to fail to provide any data, cite any sources, or provide any other objective validation to the claims you are making.

We would be fools to take your word on anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

You need funding to prove anything. They don't get funded to prove global warming doesn't exist.

The hell they don't. The professional deniers, the few scientists that prostitute their credentials for fossil fuel money make more than honest scientists.

 

[ding]

That’s exactly where you’re misreading what the models do. They don’t just assume all warming is CO2 and then backfill feedbacks. They start with all known forcings and run the model with only natural forcings. That run fails to reproduce the post-1950 warming. Only when you add anthropogenic CO2 does the model match the observed trend. That’s how attribution works: it’s not “assign all warming to CO2,” it’s “remove everything else and see what’s left.” The residual warming isn’t an assumption; it’s the measured shortfall after natural factors are accounted for.

Calibration doesn’t mean the model is pre-set to CO2. It just adjusts tunable parameters within physical constraints to make sure the model behaves realistically across hundreds of observed phenomena. You can’t fake all of those independent signals simultaneously by arbitrarily over-assigning CO2. That’s why the idea that models assign all warming to CO2 is a logical misread, not a factual critique.

I don't believe I am. They tuned their model to show no climate variability when the geologic record is chock full of climate variability. So any model which shows no climate variability by necessity attributes all warming to CO2. Which is exactly what their results show. That you don't question the feedback being 3.5 times the direct radiative forcing of CO2 boggles my mind.

When do you believe the current warming trend began?

 

[Anomalism]

It's showing what I said it would show based upon how they calibrated their models. Which is no natural warming. They should have added the known warming from CO2 which is the direct radiative forcing from physics and then calibrated the natural parameters to get the match. You want to believe this wasn't a manipulation of the data. I know better. The empirical data from the geologic record shows there is no climate sensitivity to CO2.

It's not a manipulation; it’s showing radiative forcing contributions relative to 1750, not temperature changes. The tiny natural bar isn’t a result of calibration. It’s the observed estimate of how much solar variability and volcanic activity have pushed the planet’s energy balance over the last ~250 years. That’s literally what the science says: natural factors contributed almost nothing compared to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The direct CO2 forcing you mention, the 1°C per doubling, is already incorporated into that anthropogenic bar. The models aren’t assuming all warming is CO2; they are quantifying the effect of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and aerosols using physics, and then comparing that to natural influences.

As for the geologic record, it doesn’t contradict CO2 sensitivity. The climate responds to CO2 over different timescales and in combination with other boundary conditions. Rapid human emissions are injecting CO2 much faster than most natural processes can counteract, which is why modern warming is outside typical glacial–interglacial cycles.

 

[Stryder50]

You’re framing all of climate science as driven solely by funding and politics, but that oversimplifies things. Funding and incentives absolutely shape what gets studied, but independent measurements, satellites, ocean temperatures, ice cores, tree rings, don’t care about politics. They exist whether anyone funds a study or not.

Yes, predictions have often missed exact timelines or magnitudes, and some hyperbolic claims, like the “polar bears will go extinct this year" have been wrong. That doesn’t invalidate the broader observations being made. Science is inherently iterative: models are revised, error bars updated, and hypotheses tested.

The economic and political failures of renewable energy policy, or the fact that governments mismanage funds, are real, but they are implementation problems, not evidence that CO2 doesn’t trap heat or that humans don’t influence climate. You're conflating bad policy with bad science, again.

The thing is that one can be selective in what measurements~data they want to consider and crunch into their formulations, and then get the results they are after. Meanwhile ignore, leave out that data/measurements that would invalidate their a prior i process.

 

[Anomalism]

And you continue to fail to provide any data, cite any sources, or provide any other objective validation to the claims you are making.

We would be fools to take your word on anything.

Which claim, specifically, would you like me to provide a source for?