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

[Anomalism]

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?

All of the factors you’re raising are explicitly accounted for in detection and attribution studies. Scientists first quantify the contribution of natural forcings using volcanic records, solar irradiance, orbital changes, and paleoclimate reconstructions, and then compare that to observed changes. The residual warming, sea level rise, and ocean heat content that remain after accounting for these natural processes matches the magnitude and timing of anthropogenic CO2 and other human forcings. This is measurable, transparent, and documented in IPCC reports and peer reviewed studies. The human contribution is inferred precisely because the observed changes cannot be explained by natural variability alone.

 

[Anomalism]

And yet the models have no natural climate variability.

That’s incorrect.

Climate models explicitly include natural variability. The models aren’t just CO2 only; they simulate the baseline natural behavior and then quantify how much additional warming comes from anthropogenic forcing.

 

[ding]

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.

Has sea level rise change appreciably over the last 6,000 years. It seems negligible to me. And relative to past interglacial periods our seas are pretty low considering there is 120 ppm more CO2 today.

 

[ding]

That’s incorrect.

Climate models explicitly include natural variability. The models aren’t just CO2 only; they simulate the baseline natural behavior and then quantify how much additional warming comes from anthropogenic forcing.

Do you I have to show you the IPCC graphic again? According to that graphic absent anthropogenic factors temperature would be effectively a flat line.

And did you forget to show me where the IPCC discuss in their reports that feedbacks are 2 times higher than the direct effect itself?

 

[Anomalism]

Has sea level rise change appreciably over the last 6,000 years. It seems negligible to me. And relative to past interglacial periods our seas are pretty low considering there is 120 ppm more CO2 today.

Do you I have to show you the IPCC graphic again? According to that graphic absent anthropogenic factors temperature would be effectively a flat line.

And did you forget to show me where the IPCC discuss in their reports that feedbacks are 2 times higher than the direct effect itself?

Over the last 6,000 years, yes, sea levels were relatively stable compared to the rapid rise we see today, but stable isn’t perfectly flat. There were small fluctuations from ice sheet adjustments, thermal expansion, and regional factors. What’s key is the rate. The acceleration since roughly 1970 far exceeds the background pace, which is why studies attribute that extra rise to human activity. And yes, CO2 today is higher than in some past interglacials, but other boundary conditions were different, so comparing absolute temperatures isn’t a direct contradiction.

As for the IPCC graphic you keep referencing: that line “absent humans” isn’t ignoring natural variability. It’s the result of models explicitly including solar cycles, volcanic activity, orbital changes, and internal variability. Those models show that natural factors alone would produce very little net warming over the last century. Adding anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is what reproduces the observed temperature rise. That’s exactly why human emissions are identified as the dominant driver. It’s not belief, it’s the residual energy in the system after accounting for everything natural.

Part of the problem seems to be that you don't actually know what you're looking at when you reference these different graphs. The irony? The information was collected by the very scientists that are saying exactly what I've told you.

 

[ding]

Over the last 6,000 years, yes, sea levels were relatively stable compared to the rapid rise we see today, but stable isn’t perfectly flat. There were small fluctuations from ice sheet adjustments, thermal expansion, and regional factors. What’s key is the rate. The acceleration since roughly 1970 far exceeds the background pace, which is why studies attribute that extra rise to human activity. And yes, CO2 today is higher than in some past interglacials, but other boundary conditions were different, so comparing absolute temperatures isn’t a direct contradiction.

As for the IPCC graphic you keep referencing: that line “absent humans” isn’t ignoring natural variability. It’s the result of models explicitly including solar cycles, volcanic activity, orbital changes, and internal variability. Those models show that natural factors alone would produce very little net warming over the last century. Adding anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is what reproduces the observed temperature rise. That’s exactly why human emissions are identified as the dominant driver. It’s not belief, it’s the residual energy in the system after accounting for everything natural.

Part of the problem seems to be that you don't actually know what you're looking at when you reference these different graphs. The irony? The information was collected by the very scientists that are saying exactly what I've told you.

So what will sea level rise be in 10 years?

 

[ding]

Part of the problem seems to be that you don't actually know what you're looking at when you reference these different graphs. The irony? The information was collected by the very scientists that are saying exactly what I've told you.

I think the problem is that they hide it. Which is why you can't point to it anywhere.

 

[Anomalism]

So what will sea level rise be in 10 years?

I think the problem is that they hide it. Which is why you can't point to it anywhere.

Sea level projections aren’t hidden. They’re published in IPCC reports, NOAA, and NASA datasets. Scientists provide ranges based on emission scenarios, ice sheet dynamics, and thermal expansion. Exact numbers for 10 years are inherently uncertain because short term rates fluctuate regionally, but the global trend over the next decade is projected to continue roughly at the current accelerated pace, around 3–4 mm per year, reflecting both ongoing thermal expansion and ice melt. The data and methods are openly documented; it’s a matter of digging into the reports rather than cherry picking headlines.

 

[ding]

Sea level projections aren’t hidden. They’re published in IPCC reports, NOAA, and NASA datasets. Scientists provide ranges based on emission scenarios, ice sheet dynamics, and thermal expansion. Exact numbers for 10 years are inherently uncertain because short term rates fluctuate regionally, but the global trend over the next decade is projected to continue roughly at the current accelerated pace, around 3–4 mm per year, reflecting both ongoing thermal expansion and ice melt. The data and methods are openly documented; it’s a matter of digging into the reports rather than cherry picking headlines.

3–4 mm per year isn't appreciably different than the last 6,000 years. It certainly isn't catastrophic.

 

[Mushroom]

Over the last 6,000 years, yes, sea levels were relatively stable compared to the rapid rise we see today

Sea level rise since the LGM.

It has been relatively stable for closer to 8,000 years. And in the past 8,000 years the change is negligible.

Even in the past 140 years, it's consistent.

This chart looks big and scary because it is total sea level change, it does not actually show the amount per year. And as can be seen, other than going up it's pretty damned flat. But with a hell of a lot of variations in there, which I guess are not caused by humans, even though all of that melt is now caused by humans?

Ph, and a prediction made at the time in around 2010 predicting future sea level change.

That is a great chart to see how much the sea level has changed, but it really tells nothing about any rate of change at all.

 

[Anomalism]

This chart looks big and scary because it is total sea level change, it does not actually show the amount per year. And as can be seen, other than going up it's pretty damned flat. But with a hell of a lot of variations in there, which I guess are not caused by humans, even though all of that melt is now caused by humans?

Ph, and a prediction made at the time in around 2010 predicting future sea level change.

That is a great chart to see how much the sea level has changed, but it really tells nothing about any rate of change at all.

Yes, over the Holocene the global sea level was relatively stable compared to the rapid rise we see in the 20th and 21st centuries, but stable doesn’t mean perfectly flat, small oscillations occurred due to ice sheet adjustments, thermal expansion, and regional factors. The modern data you linked may look flat on a long timescale, but when you break it down into annual or decadal rates, the acceleration since roughly 1970 becomes clear. That’s exactly what detection and attribution studies focus on: the rate of change, not just the total cumulative change. The fact that pre 1970 rise existed doesn’t disappear; the human contribution is inferred from the extra acceleration above that natural background, which matches expectations from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

 

[ding]

the human contribution is inferred from the extra acceleration above that natural background, which matches expectations from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

It matches what one would expect from a deglaciating northern hemisphere that was 2C cooler than peak interglacial temperatures. You act like this is unusual but it's really quite normal.

 

[ding]

Sea level projections aren’t hidden.

I wasn't talking about sea levels being hidden. I was talking about the magnitude of the feedback compared to the direct GHG effect was being hidden.

 

[Anomalism]

It matches what one would expect from a deglaciating northern hemisphere that was 2C cooler than peak interglacial temperatures. You act like this is unusual but it's really quite normal.

View attachment 1218083

I wasn't talking about sea levels being hidden. I was talking about the magnitude of the feedback compared to the direct GHG effect was being hidden.

The magnitude of feedbacks isn’t hidden; it’s quantified in IPCC reports, AR5 and AR6, and the supporting literature. The direct radiative effect of CO2 is around 0.5C for a 120 ppm increase, and the additional warming from feedbacks brings the total climate sensitivity to roughly 1.5C. These numbers are derived from both observational constraints and physical models. They’re not concealed; the complexity comes from communicating uncertainty ranges, because feedbacks interact nonlinearly and some are harder to measure precisely. The bottom line: the total warming isn’t a guess, it’s the sum of well-understood direct forcing plus quantified, constrained feedback amplification.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report - 2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-2/

These are not secret values. They’re in publicly available IPCC documents that anyone can download from the IPCC website.

 

[ding]

The magnitude of feedbacks isn’t hidden; it’s quantified in IPCC reports, AR5 and AR6, and the supporting literature.

Show me the split or comparison of direct to feedback. Don't provide links that I have to search for it. Quote it verbatim.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes, over the Holocene the global sea level was relatively stable compared to the rapid rise we see in the 20th and 21st centuries

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

 

[Mushroom]

Show me the split or comparison of direct to feedback. Don't provide links that I have to search for it. Quote it verbatim.

To be honest, I find the endless spinning in circles, constant claims without any verification, and the endless ignoring of key facts to spin over and over on their beliefs to be rather tedious. In the end, all they are really repeating over and over is "I believe it so that's that".

 

[ding]

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

Especially one that shows the data.

 

[ding]

To be honest, I find the endless spinning in circles, constant claims without any verification, and the endless ignoring of key facts to spin over and over on their beliefs to be rather tedious. In the end, all they are really repeating over and over is "I believe it so that's that".

I find their claims of impending catastrophe based on exaggerated feedback to be tedious. The problem is that they can get away with it because the planet is still naturally warming like it always does before the next glacial period is triggered by temperature which will affect thermohaline circulation.

 

[Hafar1014]

I find their claims of impending catastrophe based on exaggerated feedback to be tedious. The problem is that they can get away with it because the planet is still naturally warming like it always does before the next glacial period is triggered by temperature which will affect thermohaline circulation.

Its cold as hell this year. Bad metaphor