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

[Anomalism]

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

“In the absence of climate feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would cause a global surface warming of about 1.0–1.2C. Including fast feedbacks increases this warming to about 3 C.” - AR6 WGI, FAQ 7.1

“The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0 °C… ECS includes the combined effect of fast feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, surface albedo, clouds) that amplify the direct radiative forcing.” - AR6 WGI, Ch. 7, Section 7.5

AR4 SYR Section 2.3 also notes: “Climate sensitivity of about 3 °C implies that feedbacks roughly double the warming response relative to the direct radiative forcing alone.”

So the numbers break down like this:

Direct CO2 effect: ~1.0–1.2C

Feedback amplification: ~1.8–2.0C

Total ECS: ~3C

These are not hidden or assumed. They are explicitly quantified in the IPCC reports. The feedbacks are measurable, constrained by observations, and fully incorporated into detection and attribution studies. The direct forcing alone does not account for observed warming; the total warming arises from direct CO2 plus these well-characterized feedbacks.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

I never claimed imminent catastrophe. In fact, I clarified reality to a left winger that thought that's what the data is saying when it's not. I have been scientifically accurate this entire time, across partisan lines. Too bad you can't say the same.

 

[Hafar1014]

“In the absence of climate feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would cause a global surface warming of about 1.0–1.2C. Including fast feedbacks increases this warming to about 3 C.” - AR6 WGI, FAQ 7.1

“The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0 °C… ECS includes the combined effect of fast feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, surface albedo, clouds) that amplify the direct radiative forcing.” - AR6 WGI, Ch. 7, Section 7.5

AR4 SYR Section 2.3 also notes: “Climate sensitivity of about 3 °C implies that feedbacks roughly double the warming response relative to the direct radiative forcing alone.”

So the numbers break down like this:

Direct CO2 effect: ~1.0–1.2C

Feedback amplification: ~1.8–2.0C

Total ECS: ~3C

These are not hidden or assumed. They are explicitly quantified in the IPCC reports. The feedbacks are measurable, constrained by observations, and fully incorporated into detection and attribution studies. The direct forcing alone does not account for observed warming; the total warming arises from direct CO2 plus these well-characterized feedbacks.

Heres the flaw in your thnking
You assume all science is correct because its science Thats circular logic
Science found that 40% of all science is invalid.
You can copy and paste all the invalid data you want but that doesnt prove anything.
Science is also easily corrupted

 

[Anomalism]

Heres the flaw in your thnking
You assume all science is correct because its science Thats circular logic
Science found that 40% of all science is invalid.
You can copy and paste all the invalid data you want but that doesnt prove anything.
Science is also easily corrupted

Just because science can be flawed or misused doesn’t mean every measurement or observation is meaningless. The radiative properties of CO2, observed global temperature rise, accelerating ice melt, and measured sea level increase aren’t assumptions. They’re empirically documented. Pointing to alleged corruption or invalid studies doesn’t invalidate the data itself. Disagreeing with the conclusions doesn’t erase the physics or the observations; it just exposes a refusal to engage with reality.

 

[Hafar1014]

Just because science can be flawed or misused doesn’t mean every measurement or observation is meaningless. The radiative properties of CO2, observed global temperature rise, accelerating ice melt, and measured sea level increase aren’t assumptions. They’re empirically documented. Pointing to alleged corruption or invalid studies doesn’t invalidate the data itself. Disagreeing with the conclusions doesn’t erase the physics or the observations; it just exposes a refusal to engage with reality.

Fake science paid for by the green energy indistrual complex

 

[Anomalism]

Fake science paid for by the green energy indistrual complex

"Anything I don't understand is fake."

 

[Stryder50]

Just because science can be flawed or misused doesn’t mean every measurement or observation is meaningless. The radiative properties of CO2, observed global temperature rise, accelerating ice melt, and measured sea level increase aren’t assumptions. They’re empirically documented. Pointing to alleged corruption or invalid studies doesn’t invalidate the data itself. Disagreeing with the conclusions doesn’t erase the physics or the observations; it just exposes a refusal to engage with reality.

The "refusal to engage with reality" is claiming all this is the result of the ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere changing from 1 part in 3,571 to one part in 2,500 is the main/primary cause.

History of the Earth doesn't show a direct linkage of CO2 as a cause for global temperatures. More likely would be the temperature affecting CO2 levels since it would affect life on this planet, some of which make CO2, many more (usually about 95-99%) which need and use CO2 .

 

[Anomalism]

The "refusal to engage with reality" is claiming all this is the result of the ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere changing from 1 part in 3,571 to one part in 2,500 is the main/primary cause.

History of the Earth doesn't show a direct linkage of CO2 as a cause for global temperatures. More likely would be the temperature affecting CO2 levels since it would affect life on this planet, some of which make CO2, many more (usually about 95-99%) which need and use CO2 .

View attachment 1218454

Yes, CO2 and temperature have influenced each other over geological time. Past warming often led to CO2 increases from oceans and biosphere feedbacks.

That doesn’t contradict the current situation. Today, we have direct, measured emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, rising faster than natural processes can absorb, and a quantified radiative forcing that matches the observed warming. The difference is causation is now observable, not inferred indirectly from paleoclimate. CO2 isn’t just a follower of temperature anymore; it’s an active driver, pushing the Earth’s energy balance upward, which is why modern warming aligns closely with human emissions rather than natural cycles.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, CO2 and temperature have influenced each other over geological time. Past warming often led to CO2 increases from oceans and biosphere feedbacks.

That doesn’t contradict the current situation. Today, we have direct, measured emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, rising faster than natural processes can absorb, and a quantified radiative forcing that matches the observed warming. The difference is causation is now observable, not inferred indirectly from paleoclimate. CO2 isn’t just a follower of temperature anymore; it’s an active driver, pushing the Earth’s energy balance upward, which is why modern warming aligns closely with human emissions rather than natural cycles.

Do you have an experiment that demonstrates this magical ability of carbon dioxide? ... the mass is too little at 425 ppm ... not when compared to water vapor at 15,000 ppm ...

Please show us that CO2 is 30 times more reactive to radiation than water ... you say the difference is observable, please show us ...

 

[Hafar1014]

Do you have an experiment that demonstrates this magical ability of carbon dioxide? ... the mass is too little at 425 ppm ... not when compared to water vapor at 15,000 ppm ...

Please show us that CO2 is 30 times more reactive to radiation than water ... you say the difference is observable, please show us ...

Your talking to person who has made climate change his religion. He thinks science is always right because its science. Science can be bought and paid fir to get any result you want

 

[Anomalism]

Do you have an experiment that demonstrates this magical ability of carbon dioxide? ... the mass is too little at 425 ppm ... not when compared to water vapor at 15,000 ppm ...

Please show us that CO2 is 30 times more reactive to radiation than water ... you say the difference is observable, please show us ...

CO2’s radiative effect isn’t magical, it’s physics. Its absorption bands in the infrared are well measured in the lab and atmosphere, independent of concentration, and it directly traps outgoing longwave radiation. Water vapor is more abundant, yes, but it’s a feedback, not a forcing. Its concentration depends on temperature, whereas CO2 can drive temperature changes. Radiative transfer experiments, from laboratory spectroscopy to satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation, show that increasing CO2 by 100 ppm reduces outgoing radiation by 1.7 W/m2, enough to drive the observed warming.

This is directly observable in satellite spectra and surface measurements. Less longwave escapes to space where CO2 absorbs, exactly as theory predicts. The fact that it’s only 0.04–0.05% of the atmosphere doesn’t make it irrelevant; greenhouse forcing is about energy imbalance, not mass fraction. You can look at the measured drop in outgoing radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths. That is the experiment, repeated daily across the planet.

 

[Anomalism]

Your talking to person who has made climate change his religion. He thinks science is always right because its science. Science can be bought and paid fir to get any result you want

You’re mistaking skepticism for insight, and in doing so, you’re revealing you don’t understand either the science or the argument. I’m pointing to measurable, repeatable, physically grounded phenomena. None of this is about faith. It's laboratory confirmed, satellite observed, and directly linked to Earth’s energy balance.

Claiming science can be bought doesn’t refute physics. It just exposes that you’re trying to dodge empirical reality with a conspiracy narrative. This isn’t a debate about belief; it’s about whether energy in vs. energy out can be measured. It can, it has, and CO2’s effect is quantifiable. You can either confront the data or continue waving your arms in denial.

 

[Hafar1014]

CO2’s radiative effect isn’t magical, it’s physics. Its absorption bands in the infrared are well measured in the lab and atmosphere, independent of concentration, and it directly traps outgoing longwave radiation. Water vapor is more abundant, yes, but it’s a feedback, not a forcing. Its concentration depends on temperature, whereas CO2 can drive temperature changes. Radiative transfer experiments, from laboratory spectroscopy to satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation, show that increasing CO2 by 100 ppm reduces outgoing radiation by 1.7 W/m2, enough to drive the observed warming.

This is directly observable in satellite spectra and surface measurements. Less longwave escapes to space where CO2 absorbs, exactly as theory predicts. The fact that it’s only 0.04–0.05% of the atmosphere doesn’t make it irrelevant; greenhouse forcing is about energy imbalance, not mass fraction. You can look at the measured drop in outgoing radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths. That is the experiment, repeated daily across the planet.

So why isnt everything melting and getting hotter?

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re mistaking skepticism for insight, and in doing so, you’re revealing you don’t understand either the science or the argument. I’m pointing to measurable, repeatable, physically grounded phenomena. None of this is about faith. It's laboratory confirmed, satellite observed, and directly linked to Earth’s energy balance.

Claiming science can be bought doesn’t refute physics. It just exposes that you’re trying to dodge empirical reality with a conspiracy narrative. This isn’t a debate about belief; it’s about whether energy in vs. energy out can be measured. It can, it has, and CO2’s effect is quantifiable. You can either confront the data or continue waving your arms in denial.

Your data is flawed and invalidated by empirical evidence as predictions never came true. You did study research methods graduate school.
In your case its all about belief this is your religion

 

[Anomalism]

So why isnt everything melting and getting hotter?

Because the climate system has thermal inertia. The oceans, ice sheets, and atmosphere act like a gigantic heat sink. They absorb and redistribute energy. CO2 forcing doesn’t turn the planet into a toaster overnight; it shifts the energy balance, gradually accumulating heat. That’s why we measure global mean temperatures rising slowly but steadily, why ice melts regionally first, and why extreme events spike before uniform chaos appears. The water level rises over decades, not seconds. The physics isn’t broken; you’re just expecting instant, Hollywood style results instead of observing a system with massive heat capacity and lag.

 

[Anomalism]

Your data is flawed and invalidated by empirical evidence as predictions never came true. You did study research methods graduate school.
In your case its all about belief this is your religion

Predictions not lining up doesn’t invalidate the fundamental physics. The radiative properties of CO2, the greenhouse effect, and energy balance aren’t faith; they’re measurable, repeatable, and independently confirmed in labs, satellites, and surface spectra. You’re mistaking decades of cross-validated observation for dogma. Calling it belief doesn’t change reality; it just exposes that you don’t grasp what an empirical, testable claim looks like. The Earth doesn’t negotiate with your ignorance. Energy in vs. energy out is not optional, and CO2 tipping that balance is textbook physics.

 

[Hafar1014]

Predictions not lining up doesn’t invalidate the fundamental physics. The radiative properties of CO2, the greenhouse effect, and energy balance aren’t faith; they’re measurable, repeatable, and independently confirmed in labs, satellites, and surface spectra. You’re mistaking decades of cross-validated observation for dogma. Calling it belief doesn’t change reality; it just exposes that you don’t grasp what an empirical, testable claim looks like. The Earth doesn’t negotiate with your ignorance. Energy in vs. energy out is not optional, and CO2 tipping that balance is textbook physics.

We are discussing research not physics. Youre using circular logic again.

 

[Anomalism]

We are discussing research not physics. Youre using circular logic again.

You’re conflating human fallibility with fundamental reality. Yes, individual studies can have errors, and yes, science is practiced by humans who can be sloppy or even corrupt, but that doesn’t erase measured, repeatable phenomena. CO2’s absorption of infrared radiation is independently confirmed in laboratories, satellites, and surface spectra by scientists all over the planet. The energy imbalance it causes is directly observable. No amount of alleged manipulation changes the physics, the measurements, or the consistency across datasets. Questioning a study is valid; dismissing the entire body of empirical evidence as flawed because people sometimes make mistakes is not.

 

[Mushroom]

We are discussing research not physics. Youre using circular logic again.

Remember, myself and others have asked for references multiple times, and they have never provided any.

To be honest, I have given up. Their unreferenced and unsourced statements given over and over without any sense of accuracy or context to me is little different than having a discussion with a Young Earth Creationist and they spout Bible verses at me as their proof.

 

[Anomalism]

Remember, myself and others have asked for references multiple times, and they have never provided any.

I've given lots of references across multiple threads. This statement is observably false just by reading the conversations.

What would you like a reference for specifically? Which claim? Which number?

If you can't be specific, then you don't actually want references.