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

[Old Rocks]

Idiot !
Look close and consider;
View attachment 1217364

You poor misguided cretin. Lordy, lordy, you have zero understanding of what the chart represents,. Not only that, that chart is on such a course scale, it does not even show the very large drawdown of CO2 at the end of the Ordovician.

 

[ding]

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.

You say the planet is warming because of an incremental 120 ppm of CO2. I say correlation does not prove causation.

I say that CO2 played a part but that the main driver is the planet warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended and the northern hemisphere is deglaciating.

Your belief is based upon what I consider a flawed model whereas my belief is based upon the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record.

 

[ding]

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

Really? Can you walk me through this?

 

[Mushroom]

They tune out drift. Drift is natural variability.

I wonder if they have actually watched a video I posted not long ago by a geology professor.



One thing that people should do when watching or researching anything is to actually turn on their brain and examine and analyze the information. Now Professor Zentner is speaking to a group of adults who actually want to learn. These lectures are phrased for the layman, not aimed at those who are simply taking his course because XX number of science courses are required for their degree. He does this for free several times a year, and I am already planning on saving money so I can attend his lectures next year.

But here is the thing, he is discussing multiple periods of warming found in geological and marine layers. And one he talks about a lot of 20 kya, in other words at the LGM at the very onset of the start of the interglacial. This layer (Stage II) is absolutely expected.

But then at around 25 minutes, he does drop something extremely significant. At 65 kya, there was a warming period that dumped a significant amount of marine sediment (Stage IV). If people actually engage their thinking caps, this means there was a significant warming period during the last ice age, somewhere between the onset of extensive glaciation and the LGM.

And the interesting thing is, this can be seen in the charts like I have presented already.

Now it can be hard to be precise when examining multiple sources of data from over 50,000 years ago. And there is always going to be various amounts of either precursor or lag data, as simply because something happens the geological and sediment data will not just point out and say "This happened at 1625 GMT on 16 August 63,425 BCE".

Now he skirted over this, as the actual topic was a glacial lobe in Spokane that was dated to 150 kya, during the previous ice age. But I immediately noticed that there was a distinct layer in the middle of our last ice age as well.

I have been studying geology for decades, and I expect things like that. Sometimes evidence for something will occur before a change, sometimes after. Sometimes we only have the evidence of a change with no explanation as to why it even happened.

But here is the thing, the moment he said that "orange" was 65 kya, I realized there was much more going on than he actually discussed. Because that is a significant amount of till, to get their own Marine Isotope Layer designated and it happened in the middle of an ice age.

That means the ice sheet formed, advanced significantly to some point, receded enough to leave behind a clear and distinct marine isotope layer, then things cooled again and advanced past the previous extent of glaciation as the only evidence is in marine isotope layers and not on the surface.

Because one thing about glaciations I have mentioned before, they tend to erase all evidence of previous glaciations. The only thing left behind are sediments deposited outside the reach of newer glaciations unless they extended below the most recent glaciation.

Now overall, in the course of the last Ice Age, this really is nothing but drift. At some point during the cycle things warmed up significantly, then sharply cooled again. Completely natural, and nothing really significant when the entire ice age itself is taken into account.

And in the lecture he discusses going out into the field and examining these marine isotope layers where they can be discovered on dry land.



And yes, these really are the kinds of things I watch for simple enjoyment and relaxation.

 

[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.

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.

These climate scientists do not agree.

 

[Mushroom]

You say the planet is warming because of an incremental 120 ppm of CO2.

To show how insignificant this is, imagine somebody made multiple millions of dollars in 2025. And in response, we are going to penalize them by increasing their taxes by US$120 for each million.

120 is statistically insignificant out of a million. But I am also aware that most people simply have their critical thinking when discussing things that large.

 

[Anomalism]

You say the planet is warming because of an incremental 120 ppm of CO2. I say correlation does not prove causation.

I say that CO2 played a part but that the main driver is the planet warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended and the northern hemisphere is deglaciating.

Your belief is based upon what I consider a flawed model whereas my belief is based upon the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record.

Correlation alone isn’t the argument; the case for CO2 isn’t built on correlation in isolation. It’s built on physics, radiative transfer, and independent tests of causation. The geologic record shows CO2 rising after initial warming during glacial interglacial transitions, but it also shows that the feedback from that CO2 amplifies the warming beyond what orbital changes alone would produce. That’s why ice cores consistently show temperature increases several times larger than orbital forcing could account for, once CO2 and water vapor feedbacks are included.

Today is different. We’re not waiting on orbital shifts or slow ice sheet responses. The CO2 increase is externally imposed, extremely rapid, and global. The main driver isn’t post glacial residual warming; it’s the abrupt addition of a strong greenhouse gas forcing. The empirical record of past CO2 feedbacks supports this: faster CO2 rises produce proportionally faster warming, which is exactly what we’re seeing now.

Models aren’t the starting assumption; they’re tools that integrate physics, paleoclimate constraints, and observations. They reproduce dozens of independent climate fingerprints simultaneously, from Arctic amplification to ocean heat uptake to stratospheric cooling. The modern warming isn’t just consistent with CO2 forcing; it is the only mechanism that quantitatively matches the speed, magnitude, and global extent of what’s observed.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm tired. I'll debate more tomorrow. Goodnight everybody.

 

[Mushroom]

What does make sense is that the planet is naturally warming because the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it always does

This is something I understood all the way back in 1978.

This was back during the "New Ice Age" scare, and my science teacher at the time had been a geology major. And when this came up in class, he said it was nonsense and went on to explain the albedo effect. That ice packs are excellent at reflecting solar radiation back into the atmosphere. And that the surface is excellent at capturing that heat radiation. And that the cold at that time was simply an anomaly, as globally the albedo of the planet was continuing to decrease, which would be causing warming in the future.

And this was all the way back in 1978! I know that Mr. Brown is long retired, and likely also long dead as he was around 60 at that time. But absolutely nothing he taught me almost five decades ago has yet to be disproven. Even the wild speculation that was only then starting to be taken seriously. That Yellowstone was an active volcano. And not only that, it was moving.

 

[Old Rocks]

You say the planet is warming because of an incremental 120 ppm of CO2. I say correlation does not prove causation.

I say that CO2 played a part but that the main driver is the planet warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended and the northern hemisphere is deglaciating.

Your belief is based upon what I consider a flawed model whereas my belief is based upon the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record.

Your belief is based totally on false premises and wishful thinking. Were we in a natural climate change, it would gradually be getting colder as we are on the downhill side of the Milankovitch Cycles.

Let's see, prior to the industrial revolution, we were at 280 ppm of CO2. At the depth of the ice age, we were at 180 ppm of CO2. In fact we see this correlation right through a bunch of interglacials and ice ages. So we add 100 ppm of CO2 to an ice age, and we get an interglacial. Add another 120 ppm of CO2, and it gets much warmer. But your claim is that there is no causation? You can say all you want, but the repeated pattern says your are spouting nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

These climate scientists do not agree.

Dr. Lindzen. Big tobacco paid him to claim tobacco harmless, which he did in front of the US Congress. Fossil Fuels paid him to claim there is no climate change. Give him money and he will claim whatever you wish him to. He is a whore.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Try to chart this incoherent gibberish through any sort of rational analysis, and your head will explode.

 

[Stryder50]

You poor misguided cretin. Lordy, lordy, you have zero understanding of what the chart represents,. Not only that, that chart is on such a course scale, it does not even show the very large drawdown of CO2 at the end of the Ordovician.

Bull shyte gramps !
It shows that CO2 levels have no linkage of cause with regard to global temperatures.
They run independent of each other.

 

[Oddball]

Dr. Lindzen. Big tobacco paid him to claim tobacco harmless, which he did in front of the US Congress. Fossil Fuels paid him to claim there is no climate change. Give him money and he will claim whatever you wish him to. He is a whore.

Oh, but give climate grifters and the IPCC billions of dollars and they'll tell you shit that won't enhance your political power.


Gotcha.

 

[Stryder50]

Dr. Lindzen. Big tobacco paid him to claim tobacco harmless, which he did in front of the US Congress. Fossil Fuels paid him to claim there is no climate change. Give him money and he will claim whatever you wish him to. He is a whore.

What you and other Leftist/Marxist idiots fail to grasp is the issue isn't whether there is "Climate Change" or not.
Rather it is if such in recent centuries is mostly human caused = anthropogenic, or more of the Natural cycles that have been since the dawn of this planet and it's "climates".

I and others are of the position that it isn't human caused and that human meddling to fix what we haven't broken will cause more damage than to leave alone and adapt.

 

[Oddball]

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.

CO2 was an effect millions of years ago, but now it's a cause because.....REASONS!

Full Dunning-Kruger right here.

 

[Old Rocks]

I wonder if they have actually watched a video I posted not long ago by a geology professor.



One thing that people should do when watching or researching anything is to actually turn on their brain and examine and analyze the information. Now Professor Zentner is speaking to a group of adults who actually want to learn. These lectures are phrased for the layman, not aimed at those who are simply taking his course because XX number of science courses are required for their degree. He does this for free several times a year, and I am already planning on saving money so I can attend his lectures next year.

But here is the thing, he is discussing multiple periods of warming found in geological and marine layers. And one he talks about a lot of 20 kya, in other words at the LGM at the very onset of the start of the interglacial. This layer (Stage II) is absolutely expected.

But then at around 25 minutes, he does drop something extremely significant. At 65 kya, there was a warming period that dumped a significant amount of marine sediment (Stage IV). If people actually engage their thinking caps, this means there was a significant warming period during the last ice age, somewhere between the onset of extensive glaciation and the LGM.

And the interesting thing is, this can be seen in the charts like I have presented already.

Now it can be hard to be precise when examining multiple sources of data from over 50,000 years ago. And there is always going to be various amounts of either precursor or lag data, as simply because something happens the geological and sediment data will not just point out and say "This happened at 1625 GMT on 16 August 63,425 BCE".

Now he skirted over this, as the actual topic was a glacial lobe in Spokane that was dated to 150 kya, during the previous ice age. But I immediately noticed that there was a distinct layer in the middle of our last ice age as well.

I have been studying geology for decades, and I expect things like that. Sometimes evidence for something will occur before a change, sometimes after. Sometimes we only have the evidence of a change with no explanation as to why it even happened.

But here is the thing, the moment he said that "orange" was 65 kya, I realized there was much more going on than he actually discussed. Because that is a significant amount of till, to get their own Marine Isotope Layer designated and it happened in the middle of an ice age.

That means the ice sheet formed, advanced significantly to some point, receded enough to leave behind a clear and distinct marine isotope layer, then things cooled again and advanced past the previous extent of glaciation as the only evidence is in marine isotope layers and not on the surface.

Because one thing about glaciations I have mentioned before, they tend to erase all evidence of previous glaciations. The only thing left behind are sediments deposited outside the reach of newer glaciations unless they extended below the most recent glaciation.

Now overall, in the course of the last Ice Age, this really is nothing but drift. At some point during the cycle things warmed up significantly, then sharply cooled again. Completely natural, and nothing really significant when the entire ice age itself is taken into account.

And in the lecture he discusses going out into the field and examining these marine isotope layers where they can be discovered on dry land.



And yes, these really are the kinds of things I watch for simple enjoyment and relaxation.

I have followed Zentner's lectures for several years now. In none of them does he claim that we are not significantly affecting the climate. Yes, there are climatic variations that result in local warming or cooling, and we see the results, but not often are the causes clear. With the present warming, the causes are completely clear. And we are the cause.

 

[Oddball]

I have followed Zentner's lectures for several years now. In none of them does he claim that we are not significantly affecting the climate. Yes, there are climatic variations that result in local warming or cooling, and we see the results, but not often are the causes clear. With the present warming, the causes are completely clear. And we are the cause.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you and other Leftist/Marxist idiots fail to grasp is the issue isn't whether there is "Climate Change" or not.
Rather it is if such in recent centuries is mostly human caused = anthropogenic, or more of the Natural cycles that have been since the dawn of this planet and it's "climates".

I and others are of the position that it isn't human caused and that human meddling to fix what we haven't broken will cause more damage than to leave alone and adapt.

Damn but you are one stupid ass. So accepting scientific evidence makes you a Leftist/Marxist. LOL That is about as stupid of a statement as I have ever heard. You and others refuse to accept clear evidence, and prefer to stay in your alternative reality.

 

[Stryder50]

Providing the Facts About CO​

Home - CO2 Coalition

co2coalition.org

Watts Up With That? – The world's most viewed site on global ...​