Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

A claim without evidence.

 

None of that, however changes the unequivocal fact that the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity is causing the recent increases in global warming and climate change from the "glass-house effect" during my lifetime.

 

So why do you continue to make your claims without evidence?

 

No, you simply made that up, like almost everything you say.

 

Alas you have no evidence to support your hypothesis that global temperatures are causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity during my lifetime, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

 

No, that is not a fact, unequivocal or any other kind. It is an assumption that is not based on credible empirical evidence.

 

Add the graph below to that graph above.

Graph below from the book "Climate Change The Facts":

 

Just more irrelevant bluff and fluff and guff from someone who knows nothing about science and scientific methodology from her primary school classes over 50 years ago.

 

There is no doubt that CO2 follows temperature in the paleoclimate record, proving that temperature affects CO2 more than CO2 affects temperature. This imposes a (quite low) ceiling on how much the modern increase in CO2 can have affected temperature. The rapid increase in CO2 in the last century or so, which has been broadly beneficial, has likely been caused mostly by human use of fossil fuels, but we know based on both the paleoclimate record and the physics of radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere that it cannot have had any significant effect on global surface temperature.

 

Alas you have no evidence to support your claim.

 

Interesting article. Revealing that their climate models sensitivity to CO2, still used today came from Svante Arrhenius in 1935. Their proclamations that more than half of the increase in temperature increase is due to manmade CO2 seems to be not much more than an educated guess based upon his calculations of the climate's sensitivity to CO2. Probably spot on in a closed laboratory experiment of sunlight passing through air and its effects. Seems to be of little use when it comes to our earth with 100s of other variables impacting the effects of CO2. If we lived within a climate model we would be screwed. Thank goodness we live upon the earth.

 

I think some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from humans and some is from natural sources like ocean outgassing. We can actually estimate how much human CO2 is in the atmosphere from isotope measurements. This is something I wrote on my blog regarding it:

3) The 13C/12C ratio can be used to estimate the life-time of CO2 and it shows that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this there is only a small percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere today. The atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed empirically by observations of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio. Around 99% of atmospheric CO2 consists of the 12C isotope with the remaining 1% consisting of 13C. The 13C/12C ratio is referred to as δ13C. δ13C is the difference between the ratio of 13C/12C in a substance compared to a standard of VPDB (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite) minus one. The number is multiplied by one-thousand and expressed as “per mil”. Anthropogenic CO2 has an approximate δ13C of around –29 (with values ranging between -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ13C of -26. The pre-industrial δ13C was -7. Today, the CO2 in the atmosphere has a δ13C of about –8.3. So, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 6% (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7) with the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. 94%) being isotopically-indistinguishable from natural sources.

 

The only one you can fool with your continual bluff and guff is just yourself.

 

None of that, however, changes the fact that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity have increased global warming and climate change during my lifetime.

 

From reading your replies here, it seems that you just don't want to listen. You're stuck on "human CO2 emissions have caused global warming" as though you were stuck in a hypnotic trance, impervious to facts and reason alike.

 

It seems you're going to insist on representing the same baseless assertion over and over... Has it ever occurred to you that regardless of how often you repeat a falsehood it never becomes a truth? No?

It appears you don't actually know the facts. Can you demonstrate that the ~3-5% of total CO2 emissions is directly responsible for any warming? Can you demonstrate that any CO2 concentration in the lower atmosphere adds to temperature? Would you be able to cite a single peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates either of these?

 

That's just your personal opinion. And none of that changes the fact that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity have increased global warming and climate change from the "green house effect", and as show by all credible climatologists.

 

He died in 1927, and his work on CO2's effect on climate was published in 1895.

Arrhenius's calculation was based on the effect of CO2 in an idealized atmosphere. Angstrom proved over 100 years ago that it was irrelevant to the actual atmosphere and the earth's actual surface temperature because adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air has almost no measurable effect on its infrared absorption properties. Any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab can confirm Angstrom's result, thus conclusively refuting the CO2 climate narrative.

 

He does, and as many of us have added the actual data that shows this, it seems to be your burden to provide a proof that suggests otherwise. More, you still have to provide a citation that the very slight addition to total global output of CO2 actually impacts temps in any way.

Worse, you seem entirely willing to drive CO2 output by simply engaging on the internet. The entitlement that must require to not be self evidently conflicted....

 

No, I identified established facts of climatology and atmospheric physics. I don't understand what people think is accomplished by calling facts opinions. It cannot alter them in any way.

But very little, as Angstrom showed over 100 years ago. The CO2 climate narrative is not based on credible empirical science.

 

I'm not the slightest bit interested in the gluff and bluff and lack of scientific knowledge from the climate change deniers. I'm only interested in the scientific work and conclusions by professional scientists about the actual causes of the recent global warming and climate change in my lifetime.

 

That's just your personal opinion.

 

Just more irrelevant guff and bluff.

 

I think Mitty is trolling you guys.