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

[Stryder50]

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]

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

All of them !
Start with providing information on your bona fides to be discussing this subject.

 

[Anomalism]

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?

What you’re describing isn’t actually what the models do. Climate models aren’t trying to erase natural variability; they explicitly include solar cycles, volcanic forcing, orbital effects, ocean circulation patterns, and internal variability. The runs with only natural forcings show exactly that, natural variability, yet those runs still fail to match the observed post-1950 warming. That failure isn’t a zero natural variability artifact; it’s literally the natural component being applied, and the shortfall is what requires anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases to reproduce reality.

The feedback factor of 3.5× the direct CO2 forcing isn’t pulled out of thin air either. It comes from observed climate responses in the paleoclimate record, modern instrumental data, and physics-based constraints on water vapor, ice albedo, clouds, and ocean heat uptake. It isn’t just a model guess; it’s how the climate system empirically amplifies the base radiative forcing. Models tuned to match reality still have to reproduce hundreds of independent signals simultaneously, Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling, glacier retreat, ENSO variability, ocean heat uptake, not just the global mean temperature. You cannot fake all of that by arbitrarily assuming CO2 causes all warming.

So the attribution to CO2 isn’t a circular assumption. It’s the result of testing the system with natural forcings applied first, seeing where it falls short, and then adding anthropogenic forcing to see if the model reproduces observed changes, and it does. That’s the core logic behind attribution.

 

[ding]

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.

I say it is a manipulation. And the fact that it's pretty well known that the models are running hot tends to back me up.

I say the geologic record proves the climate isn't sensitive to CO2. If the climate were 3.5 times sensitive to CO2 as their models suggest, the planet would have never cooled in the first place. The same conditions which led to the planet cooling still exist today. So arguing that the planet is warming because of CO2 makes no sense. What does make sense is that the planet is naturally warming because the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it always does before the next glacial period is triggered due to changing ocean currents which change because of density changes induced by the warming planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Every time the planet warms 1°C it magically warms in the 3–4.5°C range?
How much extra warming from the 4.5°C?

 

[Old Rocks]

You killed nothing in your OP.

What is the primary source of anthropogenic income for climate hoaxers?...Grants from The State...They produce absolutely nothing that anyone would willingly purchase...Perfect toadies for The State.

What is The State interested in?...More money and power, no matter where it can be obtained and the proles be damned.

The State gives money to "climate scientists" and every one of their findings results in avenues for The State to enrich itself and exercise more arbitrary power over the hoi polloy.

The findings of the climate hoaxers get questioned and debunked by scientists who have no financial interests?.... The hoaxers -via the power of The State with which they've merged- silence, demean, and defame the debunkers (see: the East Anglia emails).

IOW, you're all ******* wet.

What Goddamned dumbfuckery you spew. So the 'state' gives a scientist money to do a study on the chances of a river system being overwhelmed by a 100 year storm, and drowning several small towns. Now that study has produced nothing except a warning, which if taken, will save lives.

And it is the fossil fuel companies that are doing exactly what you accuse the scientist of. The billionaires paid hundreds of millions to install our present kakistocracy,

 

[ding]

What you’re describing isn’t actually what the models do. Climate models aren’t trying to erase natural variability; they explicitly include solar cycles, volcanic forcing, orbital effects, ocean circulation patterns, and internal variability. The runs with only natural forcings show exactly that, natural variability, yet those runs still fail to match the observed post-1950 warming. That failure isn’t a zero natural variability artifact; it’s literally the natural component being applied, and the shortfall is what requires anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases to reproduce reality.

The feedback factor of 3.5× the direct CO2 forcing isn’t pulled out of thin air either. It comes from observed climate responses in the paleoclimate record, modern instrumental data, and physics-based constraints on water vapor, ice albedo, clouds, and ocean heat uptake. It isn’t just a model guess; it’s how the climate system empirically amplifies the base radiative forcing. Models tuned to match reality still have to reproduce hundreds of independent signals simultaneously, Arctic amplification, stratospheric cooling, glacier retreat, ENSO variability, ocean heat uptake, not just the global mean temperature. You cannot fake all of that by arbitrarily assuming CO2 causes all warming.

So the attribution to CO2 isn’t a circular assumption. It’s the result of testing the system with natural forcings applied first, seeing where it falls short, and then adding anthropogenic forcing to see if the model reproduces observed changes, and it does. That’s the core logic behind attribution.

They tune out drift. Drift is natural variability. The warming trend they are modeling began 400 years ago when the little ice age ended. Did they history match that? Because unless they did, they can't calibrate their models for natural variability.

 

[ding]

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.

Every time the planet warms 1°C it magically warms in the 3–4.5°C range?
How much extra warming from the 4.5°C?

That is the definition of a death spiral.

 

[Old Rocks]

Excess verbosity doesn't prove or disprove diddly shit.

What interest/motivation does the primary funder of the hoaxers -The State- have, other than more money and power?

Please don't insult my intelligence and claim that they just have everyone's best interests at heart.

LOL Now Oddball, there is nothing there to insult by the content of your posts,

 

[EMH]

CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases absorb IR emitted by the Earth’s surface, slowing the escape of heat to space

hasn't registered in the actual data at all = theory rejected

confirmed by satellites.

LIAR

The satellite data, the ACTUAL DATA, showed NO WARMING, but was FUDGED with completely BS excuses in 2005

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Mushroom]

It’s not that models cannot be used at all; that’s a mischaracterization. Climate models are tools, not crystal balls.

And if the results can not be replicated, it's crap.

 

[Old Rocks]

I say it is a manipulation. And the fact that it's pretty well known that the models are running hot tends to back me up.

I say the geologic record proves the climate isn't sensitive to CO2. If the climate were 3.5 times sensitive to CO2 as their models suggest, the planet would have never cooled in the first place. The same conditions which led to the planet cooling still exist today. So arguing that the planet is warming because of CO2 makes no sense. What does make sense is that the planet is naturally warming because the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it always does before the next glacial period is triggered due to changing ocean currents which change because of density changes induced by the warming planet.

I say that you are bone ignorant as to what the geologic record says concerning CO2 and temperature.

 

[Stryder50]

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

BTW, start by considering the propositions presented in my posts #326 and #333 and reply to those.

 

[Oddball]

LOL Now Oddball, there is nothing there to insult by the content of your posts,

Blow it out your ass, warmer.

 

[Oddball]

What Goddamned dumbfuckery you spew. So the 'state' gives a scientist money to do a study on the chances of a river system being overwhelmed by a 100 year storm, and drowning several small towns. Now that study has produced nothing except a warning, which if taken, will save lives.

And it is the fossil fuel companies that are doing exactly what you accuse the scientist of. The billionaires paid hundreds of millions to install our present kakistocracy,

You're still ******* dopey enough to believe that The State has the best inteests of the peasants at heart!...How droll!...

 

[Stryder50]

I say that you are bone ignorant as to what the geologic record says concerning CO2 and temperature.

Idiot !
Look close and consider;

 

[Stryder50]

Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years. The phenomenon is named after the Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he provided a more definitive and quantitative analysis than James Croll's earlier hypothesis that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns.
...

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Old Rocks]

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".

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

The defining experiment was done by Tyndall in the 1850's. It established that there are GHG's in our atmosphere, and even small amounts have major effects.

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Irish physicist John Tyndall proved trace gases in the atmosphere can trap heat 150 years ago - so why isn't he better appreciated?

www.bbc.com

 

[Robert W]

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.

OK, man caused the present super cold climate then.

 

[Anomalism]

I say it is a manipulation. And the fact that it's pretty well known that the models are running hot tends to back me up.

I say the geologic record proves the climate isn't sensitive to CO2. If the climate were 3.5 times sensitive to CO2 as their models suggest, the planet would have never cooled in the first place. The same conditions which led to the planet cooling still exist today. So arguing that the planet is warming because of CO2 makes no sense. What does make sense is that the planet is naturally warming because the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it always does before the next glacial period is triggered due to changing ocean currents which change because of density changes induced by the warming planet.

You’re collapsing very different timescales and mechanisms into one explanation. Yes, the planet cooled in the past despite high CO2, but that happened over millions of years when slow geophysical forces. Continental drift, ocean gateways, mountain building, dominated climate. CO2 acted largely as a feedback in those periods, not as the primary driver.

Today, those slow forces are essentially static. Human emissions are injecting CO2 at rates the planet hasn’t seen in millions of years. That rapid increase produces a global radiative forcing that outpaces natural processes like orbital changes or ocean currents. Warming from these emissions is consistent with both observed global temperature rise and independent lines of evidence from physics, satellites, and paleoclimate reconstructions.

The northern hemisphere’s deglaciation cycles don’t explain the modern warming because they operate over tens of thousands of years, not decades. The rate, magnitude, and global scope of today’s temperature increase point to anthropogenic CO2, not the same natural processes that drove glacial-interglacial cycles.