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

[Mushroom]

I’m not ignoring natural causes. They’re built into every climate model and paleoclimate reconstruction.

Right, sure they are!

Previous estimates show that human activities are responsible for about 70% of the observed sea-level rise since 1970, with the percentage approaching 100% as time goes on.

How much do human activities contribute to sea-level rise? – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

Visit NASA's portal for an in-depth look at the science behind sea level change.

sealevel.nasa.gov

Do I need to repeat that?

Previous estimates show that human activities are responsible for about 70% of the observed sea-level rise since 1970, with the percentage approaching 100% as time goes on.

You have to take into account the first thing about me. I am neither "AGW" nor "Anti-AGW". When I am is a skeptic, who refuses to take what others say at face value and demand to see actual quantifiable studies. But when I see something claiming that 100% of something that has been happening for over 9,000 years suddenly being claimed in the last 55 years being entirely placed on any one thing, my bullshit detector starts blaring.

And once again, I am old enough to remember the sea level falls of the 1970s, as that was one of the things that the Chicken Little's were using at that time to scream that humans were causing the New Ice Age. So this is all I see.

Humans cause colder temperatures, humans cause warmer temperatures. Humans are the cause, nothing else needs to be said.

And I don't really care what the study or claim is of, any time they claim it is close to 100% caused by a single thing, I know I'm being fornicated without even the kiss first. Even more so if it is something so extremely complex as the climate. And that BS detector has increased sharply as over the decades I have now seen almost everything blamed on human global warming.

Earthquakes.

Global warming will lead to more and in some cases even stronger earthquakes worldwide. This is the assessment made by researchers from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam and the University of Southern California in a study published today in the journal Seismological Research Letters.

More earthquakes due to global warming

Rising sea levels increase the pressure on tectonic faults and lead to changes in their seismic cycles – leading to an increasing number of earthquakes particularly in the world's coastal regions.

www.gfz.de

Volcanos

Climate change is altering geological systems, including volcanic eruptions.

• Melting glaciers, for example, can cause magma to rise to the surface, while rising sea levels can reduce magma production at depth.
• Over time, certain volcanic regions can expect an increase in eruptions and secondary hazards (lahars).

Climate change will also have an impact on volcanic eruptions - Polytechnique Insights

Climate change will also have an impact on volcanic eruptions – Read the column on Polytechnique Insights

www.polytechnique-insights.com

Sorry, when I see absolutely junk science like that and see that people actually believe it, I can do nothing but shake my head. And I honestly do believe that in a hundred years or so people will look back and wonder at all the absolute junk science so many are believing today.

And I really do see it as a religion. Just replace "Satan" with "Humans" for the cause of all the ills of the world.

And people screaming over and over little more than "I am right!" is not the way to convince the skeptics like me of anything. In fact, the more and more bullshit that gets shoved out only forces us to treat them even more skeptically, as it is just a repeat of their previous mantra.

Wildfires

Is climate change causing more wildfires?
You bet it is. Climate change is a major contributor to worsening wildfire seasons, with the peak years for wildfires coinciding with the warmest years on record nationwide. As climate change makes it hotter and drier, wildfire seasons last longer, creating more fires and burning more land.

Why are there so many wildfires? | Citizens' Climate Lobby

Why are there so many wildfires all around the country? And more importantly, how can we prevent them from spreading out of control?

citizensclimatelobby.org

Right. In an area which I have stated multiple times has plants that evolved over millions of years to require fire as part of their life cycle. Once again, why in the hell would any plant actually evolve the requirement to have fire as part of their lifecycle unless that was the condition it evolved in millions of years ago?

And we saw first hand in the late 20th century that humans stopping fires as quickly as they could were actually endangering a great many plants in the region. That is why my son is paid every year to go out to Yosemite and other places and actually start fires. A plant evolving the requirement for fire in order for it to reproduce is almost as nonsensical as an animal that gestates their young internally evolving to only release their young when it's dead. It only makes sense when one understands the unique environments where those adaptations evolved. And yes, it is a very specialized evolutionary trait that only evolved in very selected areas on the planet.

Now, there are animals that when young feed on corpses. But it is not the corpse of their parent, who is very much alive. Like in parasitic wasps, who with their eggs place a living insect for their young to feed on. Or actually injects the egg into the host insect.

 

[Oddball]

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.

You act like this is my first rodeo, dude.

I've heard that vague pedantic dreck for decades...It's as though you're just copypasting it from warmer sites.

You haven't a single thought that hasn't been thought into your head from the warmer orthodoxy, and its glaringly evident.

 

[Anomalism]

Right, sure they are!

How much do human activities contribute to sea-level rise? – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

Visit NASA's portal for an in-depth look at the science behind sea level change.

sealevel.nasa.gov

Do I need to repeat that?



You have to take into account the first thing about me. I am neither "AGW" nor "Anti-AGW". When I am is a skeptic, who refuses to take what others say at face value and demand to see actual quantifiable studies. But when I see something claiming that 100% of something that has been happening for over 9,000 years suddenly being claimed in the last 55 years being entirely placed on any one thing, my bullshit detector starts blaring.

And once again, I am old enough to remember the sea level falls of the 1970s, as that was one of the things that the Chicken Little's were using at that time to scream that humans were causing the New Ice Age. So this is all I see.

Humans cause colder temperatures, humans cause warmer temperatures. Humans are the cause, nothing else needs to be said.

And I don't really care what the study or claim is of, any time they claim it is close to 100% caused by a single thing, I know I'm being fornicated without even the kiss first. Even more so if it is something so extremely complex as the climate. And that BS detector has increased sharply as over the decades I have now seen almost everything blamed on human global warming.

Earthquakes.

More earthquakes due to global warming

Rising sea levels increase the pressure on tectonic faults and lead to changes in their seismic cycles – leading to an increasing number of earthquakes particularly in the world's coastal regions.

www.gfz.de

Volcanos

Climate change will also have an impact on volcanic eruptions - Polytechnique Insights

Climate change will also have an impact on volcanic eruptions – Read the column on Polytechnique Insights

www.polytechnique-insights.com

Sorry, when I see absolutely junk science like that and see that people actually believe it, I can do nothing but shake my head. And I honestly do believe that in a hundred years or so people will look back and wonder at all the absolute junk science so many are believing today.

And I really do see it as a religion. Just replace "Satan" with "Humans" for the cause of all the ills of the world.

And people screaming over and over little more than "I am right!" is not the way to convince the skeptics like me of anything. In fact, the more and more bullshit that gets shoved out only forces us to treat them even more skeptically, as it is just a repeat of their previous mantra.

Wildfires

Why are there so many wildfires? | Citizens' Climate Lobby

Why are there so many wildfires all around the country? And more importantly, how can we prevent them from spreading out of control?

citizensclimatelobby.org

Right. In an area which I have stated multiple times has plants that evolved over millions of years to require fire as part of their life cycle. Once again, why in the hell would any plant actually evolve the requirement to have fire as part of their lifecycle unless that was the condition it evolved in millions of years ago?

And we saw first hand in the late 20th century that humans stopping fires as quickly as they could were actually endangering a great many plants in the region. That is why my son is paid every year to go out to Yosemite and other places and actually start fires. A plant evolving the requirement for fire in order for it to reproduce is almost as nonsensical as an animal that gestates their young internally evolving to only release their young when it's dead. It only makes sense when one understands the unique environments where those adaptations evolved. And yes, it is a very specialized evolutionary trait that only evolved in very selected areas on the planet.

Now, there are animals that when young feed on corpses. But it is not the corpse of their parent, who is very much alive. Like in parasitic wasps, who with their eggs place a living insect for their young to feed on. Or actually injects the egg into the host insect.

Your point about not trusting claims that pin 100% of a complex process on one factor is fair; science rarely deals in absolutes. That’s why attribution studies quantify contributions with uncertainty ranges, rather than claiming perfect precision. For sea level rise, studies show roughly 70% since 1970 comes from human activity, and the rest from natural variability, but that doesn’t mean natural processes are ignored. They are explicitly included and modeled.

The concern isn’t that humans are the only influence; it's that anthropogenic forcing now dominates the global energy imbalance, tipping the system beyond what natural variability alone can explain. Evidence from ice sheets, tide gauges, satellites, and paleoclimate reconstructions consistently shows that the rate and magnitude of changes in temperature, sea level, and ice loss over the last century cannot be explained by natural processes alone.

Wildfires, volcanic activity, or ecological fire cycles are local or regional phenomena shaped by many factors, including evolution, geology, and climate. The climate signal you see in those events isn’t religion, it’s a statistical overlay of long-term warming trends on natural patterns. Skepticism is healthy, but ignoring consistent, reproducible, multi-decadal global trends because of local exceptions is where it stops being science and starts being selective reasoning.

 

[Anomalism]

You act like this is my first rodeo, dude.

I've heard that vague pedantic dreck for decades...It's as though you're just copypasting it from warmer sites.

You haven't a single thought that hasn't been thought into your head from the warmer orthodoxy, and its glaringly evident.

I’m not copy pasting anything. Every point I’ve made comes from decades of peer reviewed research and observational data, not ideology. The difference is that I can trace every statement to a mechanism and a line of evidence. Ice albedo, greenhouse gas forcing, ocean heat transport, they’re measurable, quantifiable, and modeled. You’re free to reject them, but dismissing them as rote dreck doesn’t address the mechanisms or evidence.

If you want to genuinely challenge the science, pick a mechanism, show why it doesn’t work, and we can debate that. Otherwise, what you’re doing is exactly what I said - operating on skepticism and vibes rather than models, data, and reproducible outcomes.

 

[ding]

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.

Bullshit. 1C per doubling of CO2 is the direct radiative forcing of CO2.

And why did you give a range? I want the number, not a range.

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.

The question on feedback was about what it is for a doubling of CO2.

Let's try again:

Direct radiative forcing for an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is?

Feedback from the direct radiative forcing for an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is?

The two numbers combined equals?

 

[Oddball]

I’m not copy pasting anything.

Didn't say that...It's "AS IF".

Every point I’ve made comes from decades of peer reviewed research and observational data, not ideology. The difference is that I can trace every statement to a mechanism and a line of evidence. Ice albedo, greenhouse gas forcing, ocean heat transport, they’re measurable, quantifiable, and modeled. You’re free to reject them, but dismissing them as rote dreck doesn’t address the mechanisms or evidence.

Every point you've made comes from the warmer orthodoxy that has fudged the numbers, moved the goalposts, fudged the numbers again, smeared and blackballed anyone who deviated from that orthodoxy, and whose predictions have NEVER EVER come to pass...It's the very definition of dreck.

If you want to genuinely challenge the science, pick a mechanism, show why it doesn’t work, and we can debate that. Otherwise, what you’re doing is exactly what I said - operating on skepticism and vibes rather than models, data, and reproducible outcomes.

The "science" is GIGO....My particular expertise is in semantics and linguistics...I know when people are dissembling, evading, and flat out lying when I encounter them...The language of the warmers is every bit as dishonest as their "science"....Your language is every bit as hinky and intellectually dishonest as theirs, and you don't even have the self-awareness it takes to recognize the fact.

Oh, and computer models aren't actual physically reproducible proof, which the warmers have never had.

 

[Anomalism]

Bullshit. 1C per doubling of CO2 is the direct radiative forcing of CO2.

And why did you give a range? I want the number, not a range.


The question on feedback was about what it is for a doubling of CO2.

Let's try again:

Direct radiative forcing for an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is?

Feedback from the direct radiative forcing for an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is?

The two numbers combined equals?

You’re trying to force a false dichotomy between natural processes and CO2 forcing, but the math doesn’t support your position.

Let’s do exactly what you asked, quantitatively.

Radiative forcing from CO2 is given by the standard formula used in climate physics:

ΔF = 5.35 · ln(C/C0

For an increase of 120 ppm (280 → 400 ppm)...

ΔF = 5.35 - ln(400/280)
ΔF = 1.9 W/m2

That number is not controversial. It comes straight from radiative transfer spectroscopy. Now convert forcing to temperature. The direct no feedback sensitivity is about...

λ₀ = 0.27C per W/m2

So...

Direct warming = 1.9 × 0.27 = 0.5C

That’s the direct radiative effect of +120 ppm CO2. Now include feedbacks. The observed climate sensitivity is about...

λ = 0.8C per W/m2
ECS = 3C for 3.7 W/m2

So...

Total warming = 1.9 × 0.8 = 1.5C

The breakdown you specifically asked for...

Direct CO2 effect: ~0.5C
Feedback amplification: ~1.0C
Combined: 1.5C

Observed warming so far: ~1.2 °C

Which means this is the core problem with your position...

There is no unexplained energy left that needs to be attributed to natural recovery. The measured CO2 forcing alone quantitatively accounts for the warming we see. Your argument is not actually “we don’t understand natural processes.” It’s “I reject radiative transfer physics unless glacial cycles are perfectly modeled first.” But glacial cycles are driven by orbital forcing + feedbacks on millennial timescales. Modern warming is driven by a measured, present day radiative imbalance of 1.9 W/m2 from CO2 alone.

Those are different mechanisms, different timescales, different math. You keep demanding history matching of ice ages because that’s the only place left to hide once the energy budget is written down. The moment you accept the forcing numbers, the natural recovery hypothesis collapses quantitatively. This is no longer a debate about oceans or AMOC. It’s about whether you accept radiative transfer physics. The same physics used in satellites, infrared imaging, and astrophysics, or not.

 

[Anomalism]

Didn't say that...It's "AS IF".

Every point you've made comes from the warmer orthodoxy that has fudged the numbers, moved the goalposts, fudged the numbers again, smeared and blackballed anyone who deviated from that orthodoxy, and whose predictions have NEVER EVER come to pass...It's the very definition of dreck.

The "science" is GIGO....My particular expertise is in semantics and linguistics...I know when people are dissembling, evading, and flat out lying when I encounter them...The language of the warmers is every bit as dishonest as their "science"....Your language is every bit as hinky and intellectually dishonest as theirs, and you don't even have the self-awareness it takes to recognize the fact.

Oh, and computer models aren't actual physically reproducible proof, which the warmers have never had.

You’ve shifted the argument from physics to sociology. Calling something orthodoxy or dreck isn’t a scientific critique; it’s just an assertion of institutional corruption. If the claim is that greenhouse forcing is wrong, then the place to attack it is the radiative transfer physics itself- the absorption spectra, the energy balance, the measured outgoing longwave radiation. Not who funded whom, not how scientists talk, not vibes about language. The equations either work or they don’t.

And climate science doesn’t rest on computer models alone. We have direct satellite measurements of Earth’s energy imbalance, laboratory spectroscopy of CO2 absorption lines, observed increases in ocean heat content, and paleoclimate sensitivity that matches modern sensitivity. Those are independent empirical lines of evidence. The models are just the system that integrates known physics. Rejecting all of that because “humans are political” isn’t skepticism, it’s epistemic nihilism. A position that would also invalidate plate tectonics, stellar evolution, nuclear physics, and most of modern engineering. At that point the disagreement isn’t about climate anymore, it’s about whether complex physical systems can be known quantitatively at all. And if the answer is no, then no amount of data will ever matter by definition.

 

[ding]

You’re trying to force a false dichotomy between natural processes and CO2 forcing, but the math doesn’t support your position.

Let’s do exactly what you asked, quantitatively.

Radiative forcing from CO2 is given by the standard formula used in climate physics:

ΔF = 5.35 · ln(C/C0

For an increase of 120 ppm (280 → 400 ppm)...

ΔF = 5.35 - ln(400/280)
ΔF = 1.9 W/m2

That number is not controversial. It comes straight from radiative transfer spectroscopy. Now convert forcing to temperature. The direct no feedback sensitivity is about...

λ₀ = 0.27C per W/m2

So...

Direct warming = 1.9 × 0.27 = 0.5C

That’s the direct radiative effect of +120 ppm CO2. Now include feedbacks. The observed climate sensitivity is about...

λ = 0.8C per W/m2
ECS = 3C for 3.7 W/m2

So...

Total warming = 1.9 × 0.8 = 1.5C

The breakdown you specifically asked for...

Direct CO2 effect: ~0.5C
Feedback amplification: ~1.0C
Combined: 1.5C

Observed warming so far: ~1.2 °C

Which means this is the core problem with your position...

There is no unexplained energy left that needs to be attributed to natural recovery. The measured CO2 forcing alone quantitatively accounts for the warming we see. Your argument is not actually “we don’t understand natural processes.” It’s “I reject radiative transfer physics unless glacial cycles are perfectly modeled first.” But glacial cycles are driven by orbital forcing + feedbacks on millennial timescales. Modern warming is driven by a measured, present day radiative imbalance of 1.9 W/m2 from CO2 alone.

Those are different mechanisms, different timescales, different math. You keep demanding history matching of ice ages because that’s the only place left to hide once the energy budget is written down. The moment you accept the forcing numbers, the natural recovery hypothesis collapses quantitatively. This is no longer a debate about oceans or AMOC. It’s about whether you accept radiative transfer physics. The same physics used in satellites, infrared imaging, and astrophysics, or not.

Actually I'm trying to get you to be transparent. I don't care about how you arrive at the breakdown between direct forcing and feedback. I just wanted you to state what you believe the IPCC says it is for an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
So according to the IPCC 120 ppm of incremental CO2 produced 0.5C of warming from direct radiative forcing of CO2 and that 0.5C of warming produced two times more warming from feedback. And you don't think that is odd?

Can you show me in the IPCC reports where the IPCC is transparent about feedback being equal to 2 times the direct GHG effect of CO2?

 

[ding]

There is no unexplained energy left that needs to be attributed to natural recovery.

They can only prove that if they are able to history match natural climate variations prior to man made CO2.

Do you not believe climate fluctuates naturally?

 

[Anomalism]

Actually I'm trying to get you to be transparent. I don't care about how you arrive at the breakdown between direct forcing and feedback. I just wanted you to state what you believe the IPCC says it is for an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
So according to the IPCC 120 ppm of incremental CO2 produced 0.5C of warming from direct radiative forcing of CO2 and that 0.5C of warming produced two times more warming from feedback. And you don't think that is odd?

Can you show me in the IPCC reports where the IPCC is transparent about feedback being equal to 2 times the direct GHG effect of CO2?

They can only prove that if they are able to history match natural climate variations prior to man made CO2.

You’re conflating two separate problems again. History matching every nuance of pre industrial variability isn’t required to identify the effect of CO2 today. Detection and attribution studies don’t ignore natural variability. They explicitly quantify it using volcanic records, solar cycles, orbital forcing, and paleoclimate reconstructions. Once the natural baseline is accounted for, the residual warming matches the radiative forcing of anthropogenic CO2. That’s not a matter of belief. It’s measurable, physical, and independent of whether every detail of glacial cycles is perfectly modeled.

Demanding perfect history matching before accepting any attribution is an impossible standard that would disqualify almost all of science. The global energy imbalance today is real, observed, and explained quantitatively by CO2 forcing plus feedbacks. Claiming that it could all be natural recovery ignores that the residual energy in the system is already accounted for and precisely matches the forcing from human emissions. The numbers don’t leave room for the hypothesis you’re hanging on to.

 

[Mushroom]

For sea level rise, studies show roughly 70% since 1970 comes from human activity

Yet, sea levels have been rising pretty consistently for well over a century. 0.18 inches per year.

Yet magically, somehow that has shifted so it is entirely caused by humans? What happened to the amount that occurred before 1900?

Now granted, that has increased beyond the rate prior to 1900, but that is also easily explained by displacement. Significantly more ice during the Little Ice Age was locked in ice that was actually over water. When the Cook expedition first traveled up the Turnagain Army in Alaska, the Portage Glacier actually extended all the way out to the sea. So all of the ice there was already in the water. The same with the large ice shelfs around the Arctic Ice Cap and Antarctica.

Once again, this circles all the way back around to our old friend, displacement. You can melt every single amount of ice around Antarctica and all of the Arctic Ice Cap, and the sea level rise will be 0.00 inches. We have finally reached the point where most of that sea ice not actually at the poles themselves is finally gone, so the ice now advancing towards them (or retreating from them) is all sea level rise.

This is the funny thing about displacement, if you actually understand how it works. And I also love how many doomsayers keep screaming that humans are causing the melting in Antarctica. Where even in the summer it's so cold that throwing a pitcher of boiling water has it freeze the moment it hits the air.

Meanwhile, completely ignoring that we have now identified 138 active volcanos in Antarctica. And where they are screaming we are causing the highest amount of melting, West Antarctica?

That's home to 91 of those 138 active volcanos.

But oh no, all of that melting is caused by humans, ignore the almost five score active volcanos.

Wildfires, volcanic activity, or ecological fire cycles are local or regional phenomena shaped by many factors, including evolution, geology, and climate. The climate signal you see in those events isn’t religion, it’s a statistical overlay of long-term warming trends on natural patterns.

Right, sure it is. All caused by humans according to what many are claiming. Which is why I reject 99% of them.

And the true believers are simply shouting out what they were told to believe. And this is not the first time in recent history that we have seen such behavior. Not all that many decades ago millions were put to death because it was scientifically proven that they were inferior.

The funny thing is, do not think I have not noticed that you keep ignoring many of the key scientific points I am making, and concentrate back on spurious claims. Like the multiple times I have discussed the very specialized evolution that did not just suddenly pop up in recent decades or even centuries but evolved literally over millions of years.

In fact, so old that they significantly predate even the last 3 million years of Ice Ages in the first place. They are that old, which defies the very claim that the fires are caused by humans in the first place. They are not, they are simply how the plants in the area evolved.

And yes, the plants evolved to cause fires and burn.

Or how often I have had to bring up our old friend, displacement. We know there was a hell of a lot more ice over water in the latter part of the 19th century, hundreds of expeditions in that era proved that. And that ice even then was melting, as return expeditions many times would not find it anymore. Such as the aforementioned Portage Glacier.

Now, care to explain how humans are causing more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes due to AGW? That once again is nothing but a spurious claim, and anybody with functioning brain cells should know that and dismiss it.

Sorry, I find that claim as nonsensical as this chart.

Which ultimately is nothing but the False Cause Logical Fallacy.

 

[ding]

You’re conflating two separate problems again. History matching every nuance of pre industrial variability isn’t required to identify the effect of CO2 today. Detection and attribution studies don’t ignore natural variability. They explicitly quantify it using volcanic records, solar cycles, orbital forcing, and paleoclimate reconstructions. Once the natural baseline is accounted for, the residual warming matches the radiative forcing of anthropogenic CO2. That’s not a matter of belief. It’s measurable, physical, and independent of whether every detail of glacial cycles is perfectly modeled.

Demanding perfect history matching before accepting any attribution is an impossible standard that would disqualify almost all of science. The global energy imbalance today is real, observed, and explained quantitatively by CO2 forcing plus feedbacks. Claiming that it could all be natural recovery ignores that the residual energy in the system is already accounted for and precisely matches the forcing from human emissions. The numbers don’t leave room for the hypothesis you’re hanging on to.

How about just history matching this? Or do you believe the climate doesn't fluctuate? Because when I look at the empirical data, I see lots of natural variability such that when you look at any 200 year period I can argue the planet is warming or cooling drastically.

 

[Mushroom]

And yes, I regularly communicate with many professional geologists. And when I brought up human warming causing increases in earthquakes and volcanos, they all shook their heads and said it was complete nonsense. After all, those are all processes that even at the most recent started well over 5 million years ago for the newest of them, well before modern humans even evolved.

I think what I find amazing here is that I actually provided a "perfect out" to at least agree that many of the claims are in fact so impossible to be believed that they should be dismissed. Especially as a great many organizations ranging from the USGS to the Smithsonian Institute have dismissed both of those claims.

So I am not surprised at all that some actually insist they are real. Once again, not science but religion.

 

[Anomalism]

Yet, sea levels have been rising pretty consistently for well over a century. 0.18 inches per year.

Yet magically, somehow that has shifted so it is entirely caused by humans? What happened to the amount that occurred before 1900?

Now granted, that has increased beyond the rate prior to 1900, but that is also easily explained by displacement. Significantly more ice during the Little Ice Age was locked in ice that was actually over water. When the Cook expedition first traveled up the Turnagain Army in Alaska, the Portage Glacier actually extended all the way out to the sea. So all of the ice there was already in the water. The same with the large ice shelfs around the Arctic Ice Cap and Antarctica.

Once again, this circles all the way back around to our old friend, displacement. You can melt every single amount of ice around Antarctica and all of the Arctic Ice Cap, and the sea level rise will be 0.00 inches. We have finally reached the point where most of that sea ice not actually at the poles themselves is finally gone, so the ice now advancing towards them (or retreating from them) is all sea level rise.

This is the funny thing about displacement, if you actually understand how it works. And I also love how many doomsayers keep screaming that humans are causing the melting in Antarctica. Where even in the summer it's so cold that throwing a pitcher of boiling water has it freeze the moment it hits the air.

Meanwhile, completely ignoring that we have now identified 138 active volcanos in Antarctica. And where they are screaming we are causing the highest amount of melting, West Antarctica?

That's home to 91 of those 138 active volcanos.

But oh no, all of that melting is caused by humans, ignore the almost five score active volcanos.

Right, sure it is. All caused by humans according to what many are claiming. Which is why I reject 99% of them.

And the true believers are simply shouting out what they were told to believe. And this is not the first time in recent history that we have seen such behavior. Not all that many decades ago millions were put to death because it was scientifically proven that they were inferior.

The funny thing is, do not think I have not noticed that you keep ignoring many of the key scientific points I am making, and concentrate back on spurious claims. Like the multiple times I have discussed the very specialized evolution that did not just suddenly pop up in recent decades or even centuries but evolved literally over millions of years.

In fact, so old that they significantly predate even the last 3 million years of Ice Ages in the first place. They are that old, which defies the very claim that the fires are caused by humans in the first place. They are not, they are simply how the plants in the area evolved.

And yes, the plants evolved to cause fires and burn.

Or how often I have had to bring up our old friend, displacement. We know there was a hell of a lot more ice over water in the latter part of the 19th century, hundreds of expeditions in that era proved that. And that ice even then was melting, as return expeditions many times would not find it anymore. Such as the aforementioned Portage Glacier.

Now, care to explain how humans are causing more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes due to AGW? That once again is nothing but a spurious claim, and anybody with functioning brain cells should know that and dismiss it.

Sorry, I find that claim as nonsensical as this chart.

Which ultimately is nothing but the False Cause Logical Fallacy.

The points you’re raising about historical sea level rise, ice displacement, and local phenomena like volcanos and wildfires don’t negate the observed anthropogenic contribution; they just highlight that the climate system is complex. Modern attribution studies explicitly separate these natural factors from human driven signals. That’s how researchers arrive at estimates like ~70% of post 1970 sea level rise being from human activity. The presence of natural variability or localized processes doesn’t erase the residual trend, which matches the radiative forcing from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Displacement explains some historical sea level changes, but it cannot account for the acceleration of rise and global pattern over the last century. The anthropogenic signal is on top of natural variability, not replacing it.

 

[Mushroom]

Demanding perfect history matching before accepting any attribution is an impossible standard that would disqualify almost all of science. The global energy imbalance today is real, observed, and explained quantitatively by CO2 forcing plus feedbacks.

Care to explain how in the last century the amount of sea level rise doubled, yet we are supposed to believe all sea level rise is caused by humans? What about the half before the last century? Did that suddenly vanish so it is all caused by humans now?

It is not a "double standard", it is expecting consistency. And the only consistency I have seen is just "blame it all on humans".

 

[Anomalism]

How about just history matching this? Or do you believe the climate doesn't fluctuate? Because when I look at the empirical data, I see lots of natural variability such that when you look at any 200 year period I can argue the planet is warming or cooling drastically.

View attachment 1218068

You’re conflating short term with long term. Climate absolutely fluctuates on decadal to centennial scales. That’s what natural variability is, but detection and attribution aren’t based on cherry picked 200 year slices. They use the full observational record, paleoclimate reconstructions, and quantified forcings to define the expected natural baseline. Once you account for that baseline, the residual warming since the mid 20th century is consistent with anthropogenic CO2 and cannot be explained by natural variability alone. Observing local or short term ups and downs doesn’t negate a long term trend driven by an imposed energy imbalance.

 

[Mushroom]

The points you’re raising about historical sea level rise, ice displacement, and local phenomena like volcanos and wildfires don’t negate the observed anthropogenic contribution

And where exactly are things like that taken into account?

I am sure others notice, that I am actually bringing facts to the table. You are just making claims with nothing behind it other than your beliefs. Ding, myself and others bring up references, you just say things.

Are you actually going to discuss the actual science, or just continue to bore us with your beliefs with nothing to back them up?

 

[Anomalism]

And yes, I regularly communicate with many professional geologists. And when I brought up human warming causing increases in earthquakes and volcanos, they all shook their heads and said it was complete nonsense. After all, those are all processes that even at the most recent started well over 5 million years ago for the newest of them, well before modern humans even evolved.

I think what I find amazing here is that I actually provided a "perfect out" to at least agree that many of the claims are in fact so impossible to be believed that they should be dismissed. Especially as a great many organizations ranging from the USGS to the Smithsonian Institute have dismissed both of those claims.

So I am not surprised at all that some actually insist they are real. Once again, not science but religion.

Care to explain how in the last century the amount of sea level rise doubled, yet we are supposed to believe all sea level rise is caused by humans? What about the half before the last century? Did that suddenly vanish so it is all caused by humans now?

It is not a "double standard", it is expecting consistency. And the only consistency I have seen is just "blame it all on humans".

The key isn’t blame it all on humans. It’s looking at the change in rate. Sea level has indeed risen over centuries, but the rate since roughly 1970 is significantly higher than the background rate from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Detection and attribution studies explicitly account for the pre 1970 trend and the natural factors that caused it, like glacial rebound, thermal expansion from natural variability, and seasonal ice melt. What’s left, this accelerated rise, matches what you would expect from anthropogenic contributions. The pre 1970 rise didn’t vanish; it’s still part of the historical record. The point is that humans aren’t responsible for all sea level rise historically. They’re responsible for the extra rise above what natural processes would produce, which is what the studies quantify.

 

[ding]

You’re conflating short term with long term. Climate absolutely fluctuates on decadal to centennial scales. That’s what natural variability is, but detection and attribution aren’t based on cherry picked 200 year slices. They use the full observational record, paleoclimate reconstructions, and quantified forcings to define the expected natural baseline. Once you account for that baseline, the residual warming since the mid 20th century is consistent with anthropogenic CO2 and cannot be explained by natural variability alone. Observing local or short term ups and downs doesn’t negate a long term trend driven by an imposed energy imbalance.

And yet the models have no natural climate variability.