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

[Anomalism]

Nice smoke blowing warmer boilerplate with absolutely zero hard, repeatable, quantifiable evidence to back it up.

You're not actually debating anymore. You're just throwing a tantrum.

Calling something boilerplate isn’t a refutation. If you think ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas amplification, or ocean circulation aren’t real mechanisms, then point to a specific one and show why it’s wrong. Otherwise you’re not disputing evidence, you’re just rejecting the existence of scientific explanations you don’t like.

You don't actually understand this topic, and I'm demonstrating that in real time. That's why you've been reduced to name calling.

One of us is operating with models and evidence, the other is operating with vibes and contempt.

 

[ding]

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.

There were actually quite a few of them. They are called D-O events and are driven by changing ocean currents.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

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.

With respect to the direct radiative forcing of CO2 it is relatively insignificant. It's the ridiculous feedback they pile on that's the problem. They used a flawed methodology which led to using flawed assumptions. They assume the planet is not naturally warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended. I guess they assumed the earth was going to stay at that temperature forever or something.

Until they can history match how the planet has naturally cooled and warmed, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic changes has on that process.

 

[Anomalism]

There were actually quite a few of them. They are called D-O events and are driven by changing ocean currents.

View attachment 1217933

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And still, no data you've provided actually contradicts the findings of climate scientists.

At this point it seems like you either don't want to learn or are intentionally obfuscating reality.

Which is it?

 

[ding]

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.

Garbage in equals garbage out. Until they can history match how the planet has naturally cooled and warmed, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic changes has on that process.

 

[ding]

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.

My belief is based upon the geologic record and that orbital changes can't cause abrupt climate changes, but the ocean can. There's even quite a few technical papers discussing the evidence of changes to ocean currents causing abrupt glaciation and abrupt deglaciation.

According to your way of thinking, CO2 saved the planet from plunging into a glacial period.

 

[Anomalism]

Garbage in equals garbage out. Until they can history match how the planet has naturally cooled and warmed, they have no business modeling the impact anthropogenic changes has on that process.

That’s a misunderstanding of how climate models are used. Modern attribution studies don’t rely solely on reproducing every single natural fluctuation to be valid. Instead, they test models against known forcings to see if those alone can explain observed climate trends. They can and do successfully reproduce pre industrial variability and past climate events within uncertainty ranges. Once you remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, the models fail to match the rapid post 1950 warming. That failure isn’t garbage in, garbage out; it’s a falsifiable result showing that natural variability alone cannot explain modern warming.

It’s also worth noting that models are just one tool. Observational data, paleoclimate proxies, and radiative physics independently support the conclusion that human emissions are the dominant driver of current warming. Rejecting that because models can’t perfectly recreate every nuance of past natural variability is a logical dodge, not a scientific critique.

 

[ding]

That’s a misunderstanding of how climate models are used. Modern attribution studies don’t rely solely on reproducing every single natural fluctuation to be valid. Instead, they test models against known forcings to see if those alone can explain observed climate trends. They can and do successfully reproduce pre industrial variability and past climate events within uncertainty ranges. Once you remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, the models fail to match the rapid post 1950 warming. That failure isn’t garbage in, garbage out; it’s a falsifiable result showing that natural variability alone cannot explain modern warming.

It’s also worth noting that models are just one tool. Observational data, paleoclimate proxies, and radiative physics independently support the conclusion that human emissions are the dominant driver of current warming. Rejecting that because models can’t perfectly recreate every nuance of past natural variability is a logical dodge, not a scientific critique.

I say it is disingenuous to model it any other way. History match the natural processes and then investigate anthropogenic changes. It can't be done accurately any other way.

 

[Anomalism]

I say it is disingenuous to model it any other way. History match the natural processes and then investigate anthropogenic changes. It can't be done accurately any other way.

That’s exactly what attribution studies do. They explicitly history match natural forcings and show that these alone cannot reproduce the post 1950 warming. Only when anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included do the models match observations. Insisting that natural processes must be perfectly replicated before considering CO2 is a strawman; the studies already quantify natural variability and isolate it. Rejecting the result because it’s not perfect ignores that science works with uncertainty ranges, not unattainable perfection.

 

[ding]

That’s exactly what attribution studies do. They explicitly history match natural forcings and show that these alone cannot reproduce the post 1950 warming. Only when anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included do the models match observations. Insisting that natural processes must be perfectly replicated before considering CO2 is a strawman; the studies already quantify natural variability and isolate it. Rejecting the result because it’s not perfect ignores that science works with uncertainty ranges, not unattainable perfection.

Great show me the history match of the last glacial cycle starting with the interglacial that preceded it.

 

[Anomalism]

Great show me the history match of the last glacial cycle starting with the interglacial that preceded it.

You’re conflating two different questions. Modern attribution studies aren’t trying to simulate every detail of glacial-interglacial cycles. They explicitly quantify natural forcings and internal variability to see if those alone can reproduce the observed 20th–21st century warming. They cannot. Only when anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included do models match the rapid, global, post-1950 trend. Demanding a perfect history match of an entire glacial cycle is irrelevant to the question of what’s driving modern warming. It’s a distraction, not a refutation.

 

[Stryder50]

That's because he doesn't have any science on his side.

ICYMI, he stated in the OP that he won't debate the science on the premise that it's incontrovertible, then demands you supply it to refute the science that he refuses to talk about.

Despite his extensive text bricks of excess verbosity, he really ain't that bright....I strongly suspect all the smoke blowing is meant to try and cover for that.

I agree with you there. I've been holding back on playing those cards.
Also, I've come to realize that with posters like "him", they're too invested in their bias to change position, or honestly assess counter data, counter arguments.

I present for the benefit of the other readers who might not see through his doublespeak. That's all that can be done with extremists.

​

 

[Stryder50]

Rapid changes at the end of glacial periods were influenced by feedbacks in the climate system, not just orbital forcing alone. Milankovitch cycles set the pace of incoming solar radiation, but ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas concentrations, and changes in ocean circulation amplified and sometimes accelerated temperature shifts. These mechanisms explain why warming or cooling could appear rapid relative to the baseline orbital forcing.

The key difference with modern warming is timescale and cause. The post industrial temperature increase is occurring over a century, orders of magnitude faster than glacial transitions, and is tightly correlated with human emissions of CO2, rather than natural orbital variations or slow feedbacks. Past glacial swings and present day warming operate through similar physical principles, but the triggers and speed are fundamentally different.

Bullshyte.

Rate of change is not of consequence, and that's just flim-flam to support an untenable position.

Volume, amount of components in the atmosphere is the major factor.

The contention of you ACC/AGW fanatics is that the whole atmosphere is heating up/warming due to CO2, which is only one part in 2,500. No way a single molecule can transfer equal heat to the other 2,499 and make them as warm as it is.

Besides, water(H2O) vapor is more potent GHG, when it's at an average of about 100,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm. I.e. about 2,500 times as much volume as CO2.

Keep your delusions and pseudo-science, but don't try to legislate laws or social changes from your faulty logic delusions.

 

[Anomalism]

Bullshyte.

Rate of change is not of consequence, and that's just flim-flam to support an untenable position.

Volume, amount of components in the atmosphere is the major factor.

The contention of you ACC/AGW fanatics is that the whole atmosphere is heating up/warming due to CO2, which is only one part in 2,500. No way a single molecule can transfer equal heat to the other 2,499 and make them as warm as it is.

Besides, water(H2O) vapor is more potent GHG, when it's at an average of about 100,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm. I.e. about 2,500 times as much volume as CO2.

Keep your delusions and pseudo-science, but don't try to legislate laws or social changes from your faulty logic delusions.

That’s a mix of misconceptions and misunderstanding of greenhouse physics. Climate forcing isn’t about a single CO2 molecule magically warming the whole atmosphere; it’s about how a relatively small fraction of greenhouse gases traps outgoing infrared radiation, altering the radiative balance. Even at 400 ppm, CO2 has a measurable, cumulative effect because it absorbs specific infrared wavelengths repeatedly as energy cycles through the atmosphere. Water vapor is indeed a more abundant greenhouse gas, but it acts as a feedback, not a primary driver. Its concentration depends on temperature, which is initially forced by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The rate of change matters because rapid forcing leaves the climate system little time to adjust via slow processes like ice sheet response or ocean heat uptake. The global energy imbalance we observe today cannot be explained by water vapor alone or by the natural background. It’s quantitatively tied to anthropogenic CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases.

 

[Mushroom]

With respect to the direct radiative forcing of CO2 it is relatively insignificant. It's the ridiculous feedback they pile on that's the problem. They used a flawed methodology which led to using flawed assumptions.

Hence, the "Hockey Stick" being constantly forced in.

One thing I have learned in the past decades, is that they are almost fanatical in believing in a "Static Earth". Where absolutely nothing ever changes, how it is today is how it always was, and how it should ever be. And absolutely any change is wrong and must be stopped.

Well, too bad for them that the planet is not static and is always changing.

I think one of the funniest examples of that thinking was an "informational sign" I saw in San Francisco. It was somewhere between the Ferry Terminal and Oracle Park in the mile of so of beachfront park they had set up. And seeing and reading it told me exactly how delusional the city is that they actually erected it.

On this "informational plank", it talked about what a wonder it must have been for the first "Native Americans" to have arrived on the scene 10,000 years before. And how amazing this bay must have been in the natural splendor before the Europeans all screwed it up.

I read that, and simply shook my head and walked away. Because I was already well aware of what that area looked like at the time. And it was nothing like that garbage piece of propaganda said.

Welcome to the San Francisco Bay, 18,000 BCE.

Yes, imagine that! There was no San Francisco Bay yet! It was at that time a river valley, that joined another river valley that came from the Sacramento area. That river then passed through the Golden Gate, and ran for another twenty miles until it finally met the sea. And we know this is a fact because in addition to occasionally finding artifacts and charcoal from that area in ocean cores collected in that area they have found artifacts and proof of settlements on the Farallon Islands. Now around 20 miles off shore.

Now granted, by the times humans actually arrived in the area, the coastlines had changed just a bit. No longer extending to the west of the Farallon Islands, those islands were right on the beach. But it does show the drastic change since then.

And they know it's the same story off of Florida. Once again, they sometimes find evidence of human habitation in off shore sediment cores. In fact, most of the earliest evidence of humans on North America are now long gone, as those were like almost all settlements located along a coastline that is now long submerged.

I think this is honestly one of the biggest head-shakers I have when it comes to these religious zealots. They will project their fantasies into the past and completely ignore the absolute truth that our planet is an extremely dynamic place. They absolutely want to stop all time and see no more changes ever. Not in geology, not in evolution, nothing. Like Kandor, they want to see it eternally locked as it is today.

 

[Anomalism]

Hence, the "Hockey Stick" being constantly forced in.

One thing I have learned in the past decades, is that they are almost fanatical in believing in a "Static Earth". Where absolutely nothing ever changes, how it is today is how it always was, and how it should ever be. And absolutely any change is wrong and must be stopped.

Well, too bad for them that the planet is not static and is always changing.

I think one of the funniest examples of that thinking was an "informational sign" I saw in San Francisco. It was somewhere between the Ferry Terminal and Oracle Park in the mile of so of beachfront park they had set up. And seeing and reading it told me exactly how delusional the city is that they actually erected it.

On this "informational plank", it talked about what a wonder it must have been for the first "Native Americans" to have arrived on the scene 10,000 years before. And how amazing this bay must have been in the natural splendor before the Europeans all screwed it up.

I read that, and simply shook my head and walked away. Because I was already well aware of what that area looked like at the time. And it was nothing like that garbage piece of propaganda said.

Welcome to the San Francisco Bay, 18,000 BCE.

Yes, imagine that! There was no San Francisco Bay yet! It was at that time a river valley, that joined another river valley that came from the Sacramento area. That river then passed through the Golden Gate, and ran for another twenty miles until it finally met the sea. And we know this is a fact because in addition to occasionally finding artifacts and charcoal from that area in ocean cores collected in that area they have found artifacts and proof of settlements on the Farallon Islands. Now around 20 miles off shore.

Now granted, by the times humans actually arrived in the area, the coastlines had changed just a bit. No longer extending to the west of the Farallon Islands, those islands were right on the beach. But it does show the drastic change since then.

And they know it's the same story off of Florida. Once again, they sometimes find evidence of human habitation in off shore sediment cores. In fact, most of the earliest evidence of humans on North America are now long gone, as those were like almost all settlements located along a coastline that is now long submerged.

I think this is honestly one of the biggest head-shakers I have when it comes to these religious zealots. They will project their fantasies into the past and completely ignore the absolute truth that our planet is an extremely dynamic place. They absolutely want to stop all time and see no more changes ever. Not in geology, not in evolution, nothing. Like Kandor, they want to see it eternally locked as it is today.

Two things to separate here. First, the natural dynamism of the planet, and second, the physics of the modern climate system. Yes, the Earth is always changing, and that has nothing to do with denying human impacts. Recognizing that the planet is dynamic doesn’t invalidate the quantifiable, global, multi-decadal warming trend we see today.

The argument about CO2 feedbacks isn’t about static perfection; it’s about physics. Radiative forcing from CO2 alone, though smaller than water vapor feedback, is sufficient to explain the energy imbalance we observe. Feedbacks amplify that, but they’re not magical assumptions. They’re measured and constrained by paleoclimate data, satellite observations, and physics-based models. Ignoring them because the planet changes naturally over millennia is conflating normal geologic variability with the externally forced warming we are experiencing.

 

[Mushroom]

Two things to separate here. First, the natural dynamism of the planet, and second, the physics of the modern climate system. Yes, the Earth is always changing, and that has nothing to do with denying human impacts.

So how many meters of additional sea level rise is acceptable to you?

0 meters? 1 meters? 5 meters? Why would you think our significantly lower temperatures compared to any previous interglacial are not an anomaly, and all we are seeing is yet another time of where the planet is trying to correct this but keeps getting kicked back into colder climates?

And you repeatedly ignore any possible natural cause and just "blame humans". It's like a broken record.

 

[ding]

The argument about CO2 feedbacks isn’t about static perfection; it’s about physics. Radiative forcing from CO2 alone, though smaller than water vapor feedback, is sufficient to explain the energy imbalance we observe.

Maybe you can share the breakdown between the two components (direct radiative forcing of CO2 and feedback from CO2 (i.e. water vapor)). Because the IPCC reports don't seem transparent about that.

Using today as the reference point, how much incremental temperature is attributed to the direct radiative forcing of CO2 and how much is attributed to the feedback from the direct radiative forcing of CO2?

 

[Anomalism]

So how many meters of additional sea level rise is acceptable to you?

0 meters? 1 meters? 5 meters? Why would you think our significantly lower temperatures compared to any previous interglacial are not an anomaly, and all we are seeing is yet another time of where the planet is trying to correct this but keeps getting kicked back into colder climates?

And you repeatedly ignore any possible natural cause and just "blame humans". It's like a broken record.

I’m not ignoring natural causes. They’re built into every climate model and paleoclimate reconstruction. Orbital changes, ice sheet dynamics, ocean circulation, and volcanic activity are all included. The reason we can attribute post 1950 warming to humans is because even after accounting for all natural drivers, the observed speed, magnitude, and global uniformity of warming cannot be reproduced without adding anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

As for sea level rise, that’s a separate risk-management question. Models project outcomes based on physics and emissions scenarios; what’s acceptable depends on societal tolerance for impacts, not on denying the energy balance driving the change. Recognizing natural variability doesn’t explain away the measurable external forcing from human activity.

 

[Anomalism]

Maybe you can share the breakdown between the two components (direct radiative forcing of CO2 and feedback from CO2 (i.e. water vapor)). Because the IPCC reports don't seem transparent about that.

Using today as the reference point, how much incremental temperature is attributed to the direct radiative forcing of CO2 and how much is attributed to the feedback from the direct radiative forcing of CO2?

The numbers come from radiative transfer physics and climate sensitivity calculations. The direct radiative forcing of CO2 from preindustrial (~280 ppm) to today (~420 ppm) is roughly 1–1.5 C of warming if you ignore feedbacks. That’s just the energy imbalance from the extra CO2 itself.

When you include feedbacks, primarily water vapor amplification, plus cloud and lapse rate adjustments, that roughly doubles the warming, so the total sensitivity is closer to 2–3 C for a CO2 doubling, which is what drives the ~1C we’ve seen so far. Water vapor amplifies the initial CO2 forcing because warmer air holds more moisture, and water vapor itself is a potent greenhouse gas. Other feedbacks like ice-albedo contribute smaller but non-negligible additional warming.

The IPCC reports do separate forcing from feedback in the chapters on radiative forcing and climate sensitivity; the transparency is there, but it’s buried in the technical tables and radiative transfer sections rather than in headline summaries.