Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

You have to prove the following:

1) That CO2 increases are from humans

And

2) That the CO2 increases are warming the planet

I would imagine that those two things are not so easily proven.

 

Do you have any evidence that humans do not produce any CO2 from their activities

What else is causing the recent global warming in my lifetime, given there is a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, and a zero correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, and even a negative correlation during my daughters' lifetimes.

 

Au contraire!
At this point I feel like I should just post a link to the IPCC reports since the depth of science supporting this is astounding but I am talking to someone who just told me there are no such thing as viruses. So convince me I should bother posting the very well researched science?

 

I wonder if trolls breath, or drive cars, or use electricity?

 

Assuming that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is very strong as indicated by your graph. What comes next? I think it is to show that the observed global warming is the effect of specific greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is too complex an issue to go into here and I will just say that it entails measuring the Earth’s outgoing radiation spectrum to see how much radiant energy is being absorbed by the various greenhouse gases on its way out through the atmosphere to space.

 

Have you read anything about atmospheric CO2 and the greenhouse effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

I have read the IPCC reports, such as AR4. IPCC (AR4) was produced by UN bureaucrats and politicians, not scientists. They filtered and edited the scientists’ input and mixed it up with reports from Greenpeace activists before publishing it as gold-standard climate science. The IPCC AR4 had over 5,600 grey-references which included things like newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and NGO pronouncements. In terms of its scientific quality it appears to be dishonest rubbish to me.

 

I asked you, though, not a teacher. I was hoping you would be knowledgeable enough to be able to respond with an explanation. Alas.

 

Since you know nothing about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect I suggest you do some homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

Not sure what you're pointing me to on that Wikipedia page. The only observational evidence that I am aware of that has actually measured the CO2-greenhouse effect, i.e. the outgoing IR-radiation on CO2's absorption wavelengths is covered in Harries 2001 and Feldman 2012. Feldman measured a relationship of CO2 increments to radiative forcing of 1ppmv per 0.01 W/m2. Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.

 

I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable, right Mitty? I'll take your advice and do my homework.

 

Read the whole article ........"The Earth's average surface temperature would be about −18 °C (−0.4 °F) without the greenhouse effect,[1][2] compared to Earth's 20th century average of about 14 °C (57 °F), or a more recent average of about 15 °C (59 °F)."................

 

Yes, but I don't think that's the measured back-radiation (radiative forcing) from greenhouse gases. That's an assumption and not proven. That temperature difference is simply the difference between Earth's blackbody "effective" temperature (as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann law and Earth's distance from the Sun) and its average surface temperature. Some scientists argue that the difference between these temperatures is explained by adiabatic compression. But even if we accept that it is from greenhouse back-radiation, the vast majority of that 150 W/m2 comes from water vapour which composes 98% of the atmospheric greenhouse by volume and pound for pound is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, since it absorbs radiation over a much wider energy-wave spectrum, from IR to visible light.

 

As observed by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.



Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.

 

You dont comprehend the difference between hypothesis and fact. AGW is no different than the claimed fact that the Covid vaccine prevents infection from Covid.

 

A claim no one has made. You slayed that strawman. Let it go

 

You are aware of the fact that I have debunked those two specific graphs multiple times, but you keep posting them as if hoping someone might be still deceived by them.

 

Greenhouse gases act like blankets on a person sleeping in a bed, whose additional warming effects on the sleeper's skin decline logarithmically as the number of blankets is increased. Water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas, like a wool blanket, whereas CO2 is not quite so effective, more like a cotton blanket: it warms you, but not as much as a wool blanket.

If you are sleeping naked with no blanket, your skin temperature might be about 20C. With one wool blanket, it's 25C. A couple more wool blankets brings it up to 28C. Add a dozen more wool blankets and a cotton blanket, and it's 30C (the actual ratio of water vapor molecules to CO2 molecules in the earth's atmosphere is ~60:1, so it would be more like 60 wool blankets and one cotton blanket, and half the CO2 is above the altitude where almost all the water vapor has condensed out, but let's keep things simple for you). Each additional blanket has less effect on your skin temperature, but the effects of all the blankets together is to warm your skin by 10C. Do you think doubling the number of cotton blankets will increase your skin temperature even to 31C, let alone 32C or 35C? That's effectively what you are claiming about CO2, and Angstrom proved it's nonscience over 100 years ago.

 

I guess that must be why no one drives a car.

 

Then do your own scientific research to prove or disprove the greenhouse effect by atmospheric CO2 if you disagree with the professional climatologists and meteorologists.

 

That's your issue not mine if you want to believe that woolen blankets are causing the global warming and the glaciers to melt.
I, however, prefer to accept the research and conclusions of credible professional scientists that increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activities increases global temperatures.

 

Nope. Only in your dreams.
So what is your scientific evidence that global temperatures have not increased in my lifetime?
And what is your scientific evidence that human activity has not increased atmospheric CO2 in my lifetime?
And what is your scientific evidence that solar activity has increased in my lifetime?
Or are you still just grasping at imaginary straws?

 

So what's that got to do with the global warming in my lifetime, given there is no increase in solar activity, and in stark comparison to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activity?
And how did you measure solar activity in the 1700s anyway

 

1. The increase in solar activity has been demonstrated.
2. Your question about measurement of solar activity was already answered.

 

First off we're emerging from the Little Ice Glaciation, second more people living in better and more energy-demanding societies. More and more people are emerging from abject subsistence life style to a more modern, energy-demanding environment. Prior to the LIA there were warmer environment and more CO2 rich ones.

. As I mentioned above some research is suggesting more CO2 may actually have a diminishing effect and we may see evidence of cooling by 2050-2060.