Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

IOW you have no evidence of ocean water warming in the vicinity of the GBR.

 

Once again, you are simply repeating talking points and avoiding any actual questioning.

Have the CO2 levels been this high in the past? Have the CO2 levels not been rising for over 10 ky?

Or do you claim that the permafrost would not be melting if not for humans?

Because here is the area of coverage of permafrost at the last glacial maximum:



What, did you think I was joking when I stated earlier that most of the Great Plains of the US was tundra or permafrost? Damned near all of Asia was also permafrost.

So, did humans cause this to reverse? And notice, what is mostly permafrost now was not even permafrost during the glacial maximum, it was trapped under the ice sheets. And humans did see North America in these conditions, as well as Asia. So, was that warming all caused by the CO2 from their camp fires?

As I said, you keep trying to chase the data, and that is a complete failure of the scientific method. Like many others, you are starting not with a hypothesis and adapting it, you are starting with a hard belief, and then adjusting anything that does not agree with your beliefs. That is not science, that is religion.

And that is even more obvious because like any religious zealot, you and others are claiming all can be "saved" if we follow what you all say. And this is why most in the "Church of AGW" hate me. I not only say they are wrong, I also say there is absolutely nothing that can be done to reverse this. It is inevitable, and things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer (and "worse" in their minds) than even they are willing to admit.

Oh, there is some minor effect by humans, that I do not deny. But it is tiny and almost insignificant to what nature itself is doing. As it has done at the end of every ice age. And if you want to "reverse AGW", you had better be prepared to wipe out over 75% of humans on the planet. Because anything less would do absolutely nothing.

 

Actually, I question if you do.

Notice, there is something that is very obvious in your chart. Which came first, the CO2 rise or the temperature increase?



One thing I notice in almost every single chart like this is that the temperature rises first, then the CO2 increase follows. Even more interesting is huge spikes in temperature (in your own chart in the 1940s), yet the CO2 levels were flat. I have been seeing charts like that for decades, and it is always the same. Temperature rises, then CO2 rises. It is not the other way around like many are claiming. And the largest temperature increase in your very own chart is when CO2 levels were flat and not increasing at all.

Care to explain that? Because that is one of the failures of the claims I have been pointing out for years, yet it is almost always completely ignored.

Just as I point out a huge problem with the temperature prediction charts, yet that is always ignored as well. That seems to be something constant I have noticed. Point out something that can not be explained by their claims, and it is simply ignored.

 

No, it's a fact.

Maybe, but you have offered no credible evidence for that claim, nor will you ever be doing so. Thousands of other scientists and climatologists agree with me. You just don't know about them because they have been silenced.

IOW, you have made up your mind to slavishly accept the CO2 narrative, and have no interest in science or evidence. Just as I thought.

 

I already told you: sustained, historically high solar activity.

 

IOW you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

IOW the recent increased global warming is caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

I have no reason to believe any of your blather.

 

<yawn> I've seen and refuted your CO2 climate narrative garbage many times.

I already told you, several times: the sustained multimillennium low in solar activity that was accompanied by the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, followed by the return to more normal Holocene temperatures, which was accompanied by the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years. Meanwhile, CO2 does not have any significant effect on infrared absorption when added to ordinary sea level atmospheric air, and the paleoclimate record shows CO2 is correlated much better with previous than with subsequent temperatures. You just don't understand what those facts mean because you do not know any science beyond high school level.

I have refuted those idiotic graphs many times. The absurd, near-linear increase in temperature is uncorrected for urban heating, land use changes, and the effect of non-CO2 human activities on local thermometer readings, especially at night, which is when almost all the heating has occurred; and irradiance is not a valid index of the effect of solar activity on global surface temperature -- which is why it was chosen as the index. Your graphs also end several years ago. More recent data do not conform to the CO2 climate narrative.

 

IOW you don't know what you're talking about. QED

 

Except that you can check it yourself, and determine that it is true.

 

IOW you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Already refuted.

 

No, that's nonscience I have already conclusively refuted many times.

I have already given you reasons.

 

So why do increases in atmospheric CO2 correlate strongly with global temperature rises, and there is zero correlation with solar activity?

 

IOW you don't have a clue what you're blathering about, and the climate 10,000 years ago has zero relevance to the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures now.

 

I have no reason to believe any of your blather.

 

What on Earth has that got to do with the recent rise in global temperatures and the strong correlation with the rise in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity?

 

I am requesting from you data on ocean water temperature changes over the last ~ 50 years which support your claim that increasing ocean water temperature is cause of coral "bleaching". How much has the water temperature changed in the last ~ 50 years or whatever period of time you claim is sufficient to bleach coral?

 

The other obvious thing is that there are periods of temperature decline, temperature stability, and temperature increase all during the period in which the atmospheric concentration steadily increases. Additionally rate of temperature increase for the period of time between 1910 - 1940 when CO2 increased by ~ 15 ppm is the same as the period between 1970 - 2020 when the increase in CO2 increased by ~ 75 ppm. ..

 

Spoken like a true religious zealot.

 

Faith based narratives are immune to facts.

 

So why do you continue with your faith based narratives?

 

That all had nothing to do with scientists taking bribes.

And that only happens with deniers. No scientist spouts the denier line unless they're getting paid well to do so.

 

You keep saying that, but since all the data says the opposite, you're not taken seriously, and your credibility is zeroed out.

So why do you claim something so easily disproven? I can only assume your feelings take precedence over everything else. If you feel something must be true, no stupid liberal things like facts and evidence are going to change your mind.

 

So what on Earth has religion got to do with scientific evidence and the strong correlation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the rise in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity, and the zero correlation with changes in solar activity?