Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Post 840.

 

Just posting a link to a book from a climate denier doesn't refute anything. Cite the actual refutal, and the provision of IPCC AR-6.

 

Sure it does. AR6 conclusions are based on a global energy production scenario that is very highly unlikely to occur. Therefore their conclusions are bogus. That is the provision and refutal of the provision.

 

That would describe your reliance on self-evidently incompetent and dishonest "fact checks."

AR6 claims increased mortality due to climate-related disasters. 52 of 53 peer-reviewed papers showed either no increase or a decrease. The IPCC chose to highlight the one (deeply flawed, and in fact blatantly incompetent and dishonest) paper out of 53 that claimed an increase.

No, that's just baldly false. Like all the previous IPCC reports, it is a political document created to justify forcible imposition of a specific political agenda.

 

That is of course, as usual, a bald fabrication on your part. It's not that any scientists don't notice the sun. It's that disingenuous CO2 climate narrative propagandists -- who are not scientists in any relevant sense of the term -- contrive dishonest rationalizations for minimizing and ignoring the role of solar variation in climate change.

 

If there is one person on earth who cannot presume to instruct others to do their homework, it is you.

 

BWAHAHAHHAHHAAAA!!!!

 

Or a scientist of any description, or even a minimally scientifically literate layman. Right.

Too funny.

 

Then it should be easy to refute @557 s posts on cold deaths and agriculture. Problem is you can't.

Now of course, you could counter by providing metrics and projections pertaining to other important societal and environmental factors that are associated with AGW.

 

<sigh> Which were still well above the LIA average, and could therefore be expected to keep warming the earth until it reaches equilibrium -- which is a temperature we don't know.

You mean the uncorrected, urban heat island, land use change, increased non-CO2 night-time human activity temps? Those temps?

Ah, no.

You know that I have already proved your claims wrong on that point many times. You just ignore the fact that you have seen them proved wrong, and repeat the same proved-wrong claims.

<yawn> Pretending temperatures have only gone up cannot alter the fact that arctic sea ice extent is not meaningfully different from what it was 80 years ago, when the St Roch completed the first one-season transit of the Northwest Passage.

It cannot alter the fact that heritage-variety, non-GMO wine grapes were being grown in Scotland 1000 years ago.

It cannot alter the fact that the island nations the IPCC predicted would be gone by now are still here, and in fact growing.

It cannot alter the fact that anyone can look out their window and confirm for themselves that there is no climate "crisis" or "emergency," and claims to the contrary are blatant gaslighting.

Your gaslighting has never worked, and it still won't work. The facts say you are wrong, so you are wrong, no matter how intense your feelings are on the matter. Facts don't care about your feelings, so you're out of luck.

Go on, keep up the charade. Declare victory in this SafeSpace. You're irrelevent in the real world.

 

Nope. Flat wrong. The satellites that have confirmed the indisputable shrinking of deserts weren't even flying in the 1990s:
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/no...-significant-greening-earths-vegetative-areas

Nope. That's just baldly false, like almost every other claim you make. While there are always limiting factors of various kinds that affect plant growth, CO2's drought-resistance effect on plants has meant deserts continue to shrink due to increasing CO2.

 

No, that is objectively -- and wildly -- wrong on both counts. Temperatures rose rapidly after the LIA, when there was almost no change in CO2, and were declining from the early 1940s to the 1970s, when CO2 was increasing rapidly; the correlation of temperature with changes in solar activity is of course not with the actual temperature level but with the direction of change: i.e., if temperatures have been high, then low solar activity will not reduce temperatures right away, but will tend to make them lower over time; likewise, if temperatures have been low, increased solar activity will not instantly make them higher, but will tend to make them rise over time:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/104/12/BAMS-D-23-0065.1.xml

Expecting temperature to correlate directly with solar activity is like skipping breakfast, stepping on the scale, and expecting to see you've lost 5 pounds.

 

There is no such "strong" correlation, as already proved, and the paleoclimate record shows indisputably that CO2 and temperature are only correlated because temperature affects CO2 much more than CO2 affects temperature.

But not meaningfully enough to justify the cost or forego the benefits of increased CO2 emissions.

 

Good points. I was in Shanghai a couple of weeks ago and was knocked out by the green re-evolution in terms of local transportation, in particularly. This includes e scooters, electric cars and their incredible metro system. There's not much petrol driven in the city nowadays.

China are going hard on renewables, but sadly also increasing the use of coal fired electricity. I thought that this would be likely to increase with the move to electric transportation, but interestingly the vast majority of China's electricity production goes towards industry. Only a bit above 5% is transportation. I guess that supports the notion that, by proxy, the west burns coal in China to get its stuff. The only way to get off the fossil fuel addiction is scaling up renewables.

China is the world's largest producer and consumer of coal, and it sources most of its coal from domestic mines. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2020:

- 98.5% of China's coal supply came from domestic production
- 1.3% came from imports, primarily from:
- Indonesia (43.1% of China's coal imports)
- Australia (23.4%)
- Mongolia (13.6%)
- Other countries (19.9%)

So, as a percentage, China sources most of its coal (over 98%) from its own domestic mines, with a small portion coming from international imports.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china

 

Corral bleaching is a boogie man issue. Corrals are regrowing just fine.

 

The IPCC and other such reports address this issue.

There are a lot of mistakes that can be made concerning agriculture.

 

Yeh. It’s a pretty predictable pattern.

1) I make a statement based on evidence

2) Someone calls you a science denier and demands “proof”.

3) Multiple lines of evidence are provided (multiple peer reviewed studies and direct quotes from the IPPC reports in this case)

4) Accusations of cherry picking ensue

5) It’s pointed out cherry picking is only possible if vast volumes of evidence to the contrary exists and the accuser is encouraged to provide evidence for their unsubstantiated opinion.

6) No evidence of cherry picking can be supplied (because none exists)

7) The accuser resorts to various fallacies including strawmen, appeal to stone, and ad hominem.

That’s my life on PF.

Good to see you on PF.

 

So what branch of science do you do your scientific research in? And are you a climatologist or a marine biologist?












.
S

 

And do you do research on "corral" bleaching, and if so what caused the "corral" to bleach, and is that the same reason why the corals on the barrier reef bleached. And do you also have shoot outs at your corrals?

 

So what branch of meteorology do you do your research in. And have you done a statistical analysis of the original data for the graphs below, and if so, what were the correlation coefficients for the correlation of global temperature with atmospheric CO2 levels and for the correlation of global temperature with solar activity? And what on Earth has the paleoclimate record got to do with the cause of the recent increases in global temperatures and climate change?

 

I think it catches people by surprise. It certainly did me.

There's probably less weight attached to reduce mortality with increased temperatures in the Grand AGM calculation then there should be.

The only reason I had time to read this whole thread is because I missed my train lol. So I don't have time to find the post. But there was a bit of a weak argument where you suggested that increased population around the tropical areas is, in some way, associated with warm temperatures. I would say societal & cultural factors come into play there and that unrelenting population growth (or stagnation) is not necessarily a sign of a healthy society or correlated with a fantastic climate.

But I'll try and find the post again in case I'm paraphrasing you unfairly.

 

Recent research suggests human-caused CO2 emissions do not drive temperature.
The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data
By Kenneth Richard on 18. March 2024

“From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024 It is routinely claimed that a telltale sign human emissions (fossil fuels) have irrevocably altered the atmospheric CO2 concentration is a declining trend in carbon isotope 13 (δ13C), considered an […]

 

And in conclusion from your statistical analysis of your data you can't demonstrate a correlation between the recent increases in global temperatures and solar activity. But what is the correlation coefficient for your statistical analysis of your data for the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures?

 

From your scientific research, what has caused the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 if not from burning fossil fuels?

 

Rising temperatures caused the biosphere to generate increased CO2. From the conclusion (linked for your convenience) of Koutsoyiannis, 2024:

• In the 16th century, Earth entered a cool climatic period, known as the Little Ice Age, which ended at the beginning of the 19th century;
• Immediately after, a warming period began, which has lasted until now. The causes of the warming must be analogous to those that resulted in the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, the Roman Climate Optimum around the first centuries BC and AD, the Minoan Climate Optimum at around 1500 BC, and other warming periods throughout the Holocene;
• As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];
• As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
• The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];
• Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere.