Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

This same sorry argument. How many times do scientists have to debunk it?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

 

Yet it's somehow a lot more than you know....

 

In the record of temperature and CO2 over the last two centuries:
Temperature rose quite quickly in the decades after the Little Ice Age, when solar activity increased but CO2 was hardly changing at all.
Then CO2 started rising, solar activity hit a sustained high, and temperature rose as well, up to the early 1940s.
But then for three decades, CO2 rose rapidly while temperatures fell sharply.
Then temperatures rose for about four decades, sometimes faster and sometimes slower than CO2.
In 2016-22, temperatures fell while CO2 continued to rise.

That's a correlation, but not a very strong one -- it's roughly the same as the correlation between temperature and global production of toothpaste.

 

No one has ever debunked it, and no one ever will. The claimed debunking is based on fallacious and dishonest arguments. Read and learn:

Right, because that is not the argument, just a bald, dishonest strawman fallacy. The argument is not that increased CO2 does not cause any warming, it is that CO2 is not the principal cause of warming, either in the deglaciation phases of the Pleistocene glacial cycles or the modern post-Little Ice Age warming period. Surreptitiously moving the goalposts from, "is the principal cause of warming" to "causes some amount of warming" is a very common dishonest argument by those pushing the CO2 climate narrative. But the implications of CO2 causing 10% of the warming are very different from the implications of CO2 causing 90% of the warming. Those who push the CO2 climate narrative merely pretend that if the former is true, it is the same as the latter being true.

Right. And any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab can prove that CO2 cannot, repeat, CANNOT have a major effect on global surface temperature because it does not significantly alter the atmosphere's infrared absorption properties when added to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air. It only has a significant effect in very dry air, either at high altitude above where water vapor condenses out or very high latitude in winter. In the former case it has little effect on surface temperature because there is so much water vapor in the way of downward longwave radiation, and in the latter because the sun is at such a low angle that very little solar radiation reaches the ground to cause a "greenhouse" effect.

False. The fact that CO2 correlates better with previous than with subsequent temperatures in the paleoclimate record proves that temperature affects CO2 more than CO2 affects temperature. And we know how much temperature affects CO2 both because we know how much they both change over the glacial cycle and because we know how temperature affects the solubility of CO2 in seawater, and those two results agree quite well.

True but deceitful, because even a 1% contribution by CO2 would imply that the full extent of the temperature increases required that 1% contribution.

See how you have been tricked by their dishonest "debunking" claims? Unfortunately, as Twain observed, it is easier to fool a man than to get him to understand that he has been fooled.

 

Only in your dreams, only in your dreams!!!

 

None of that usual guff and bluff is of any relevance to recent increases in global temperatures and climate change and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity during my lifetime.

 

Just more of your bluff and guff with zero scientific evidence to support your claim.

 

None of that bluff and guff changes the fact that our bureau of meteorology added the extra colour to their temperature maps because of the recent increases in global temperatures and the now common incidences of shade temperatures above 45 degrees caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

 

What scientific evidence do you have to support your claim that there has been no global warming and no increases in atmospheric CO2 during my children's lifetimes?

 

And when the permafrost melts and releases all the stored CH4, global temperatures will increase even faster. Perhaps the CH4 should be converted to CO2 to reduce the green-house effect on global warming and Venus-like conditions.

 

Physics tell us that increases in CO2 from fossil fuels, increases temperature, IF ALL ELSE remains equal. It doesn't so remain. Such as increased vegetation reduces CO2. Increased cloud cover reduces temperatures and others. As well the dramatic increase in CO2 in the last 100 years with a minimal increase in temperature indicates any causation is minimal. The couple degree increase over the last 100 years could be due to nothing more than the usual trend of rising temperatures when coming out of an ice age and our dramatic changes to the surface of the earth.

 

Just as they did when the previous ice age came to an end. Silly to believe that reducing man made CO2 will some how stop this natural process that has continued for 100s of 1000s of years.

 

The Only Global Warming Chart You Need from Now On | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)

 

I.e., scientific facts you cannot refute...

I repeat: what would make your lifetime a relevant interval? What would make increases in CO2 relevant to global surface temperature when they never had a significant effect before?

 

Why do you always find it necessary to just make $#!+ up about what others have plainly written? Is it because you have no education in science above high school level, and did not do well at that?

 

Nope. Shade temperatures over 45C have been common in Australia since records began, and there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that they have ever been caused by CO2.

 

So when should our bureau of meteorology add another colour to it's temperature maps for shade temperatures above 48 degrees, and should it be black or a different colour?

 

Just more bluff and guff with no actual evidence to support it as usual, and claiming that you have more scientific knowledge than ALL scientists who don't agree with your primary school science lessons from over 50 years ago.

 

So what is your evidence to support your claim that our bureau of meteorology always had a separate colour on it's temperature maps for shade temperatures above 45 degrees since records began? Or is that just more bluff and guff as usual?

 

So what is your evidence to support your claim that atmospheric CO2 has no effect whatsoever on global surface temperature? If so, what causes the the global temperatures on Venus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Or is that just more bluff and guff as usual?

 

So what caused the rising temperatures if you claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 has no effect? And was it from all the guff and bluff blowing in the wind?

 

I never claimed it had no effect. The natural cycle of Ice ages causes increase in temperatures when coming out of an ice age.

 

So what causes the increase in global temperatures, and why has the increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 accelerated over my children's lifetime?

 

So what is your scientific evidence to support your claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 has no effect whatsoever on global temperatures and global warming, and the global temperatures on Venus?