Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

During those low solar years, temps were still climbing. And so your conspiracy theory is debunked, hard.

And no, pretending temperatures weren't rising won't change that. 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.

 

The greening of the earth stopped in the 1990s.

CO2 fertilization hit a chokepoint there, with other factors limiting plant growth. So, increasing CO2 no longer has any increasing fertilization effect.

 

The data shows no temperature increase in Antarctica for the last 200 years. That's a factual statement. And via the scientific method disproves the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis.

 

My opinions are based on the factual information that I have posted.

 

If you know anything at all about scientific research and method, then there is a very strong correlation between the change in global temperature and the rise in atmospheric CO2 over that period, and there is zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

Nonsense.
And that's your choice if you want to believe that the coral in the Great Barrier Reef wasn't bleached because of increased sea temperatures, and was bleached by Santa using H2O2.

 

I'm not an oceanographer or marine biologist. If you're actually interested then do your homework.

 

That is how you are approaching it, and not as "science" at all. Almost all of your claim is based on little more than "faith". And do not think that I have not noticed that you almost never deal with actual facts. When challenged in yoru belief, you simply repeat the belief itself.

Kinda like what religious people do.

How about something simple, since you have refused to deal with any actual and factual challenge that has been presented to you. I am going to give you a challenge I have given to many others over the years, and not one has ever been able to provide this proof.

A lot of charts people post in here of "future temperature predictions" show things like dips in temperature. However, if you pay attention every single one of them was created after the time in question. Which is in direct defiance of reality, as I have yet to have anybody give me a factual reference to a prediction in the past 3 decades that predicts a decrease in temperature.

Oh, they will put in the decrease after the fact because they had in fact changed their prediction to match reality. But I have yet had nobody actually answer that challenge of predicting a decrease in temperature before it happened.

That is why I view the entire AGW movement as a religion. One must accept the Orthodoxy of the Church of AGW. And any that do not follow the orthodoxy must be burned as heretics.

Oh, and all that do not bow down to the Church of AGW are "Deniers". Hence, this very thread. Which is very wrong, but one must discredit any that do not accept the orthodoxy.

Tell me, how are we going to make any measurable reduction in CO2 unless we kill 3/4 of the human population? Once again, something I have stated quite clearly, but you like all the others simply ignore. Because nothing less than that will ever have any impact on the amount of human CO2.

 

Correlation is not causation. The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis causation is disproven by the Antarctica data.

 

Again no temperature data.

 

Again, nothing to offer. I'll present the challenge in a different context. Find the provision in IPCC AR-6 that you disagree with, and show your proof. IPCC AR-6 is the embodiement of the vast majority of experts in the field.

 

Yet you claim to be speaking authoritatively on such things.

Well, I have actually been PADI certified since 1990. And I saw the kinds of things you talk about decades ago. Some tropical reefs almost pristine, others largely "dead".

And the reasons were many. For some, it was simply that they were very popular dive spots. Motobu for example, almost all the coral was dead. Of course, that was a location that most tourists went to dive and most have no real idea how fragile coral is. One of the first things I was taught was to never touch it, unless such contact was unavoidable. As a long time diver, I can tell you right now that if you dive in places almost nobody does, the coral is absolutely spectacular.

And if you dive at a popular dive spot, it is pretty much going to appear dead.

And there are other things at play. For example, the corals off Ourawan appeared mostly dead. But it was not, it was simply in such shallow water that it would spend hours each day in the atmosphere that it was constantly bleached out. This caused it to look dead, but it was not.

And I have seen the same thing off Florida. Dive in one location, it looks dead. Go 10 miles away it is colorful and vibrant. The real difference between the two? One gets a lot of "tourists" to do things like touch the coral, and other is less visited so the coral was never disturbed.

And once again, this goes back to my repeated comments on the overpopulation of the planet. I have likely seen far more "natural" habitats of different varieties than you can even imagine. But more than anything else, the intrusion of humans tends to do a lot to such environments. And that will continue, unless you are willing to kill most of the people on the planet.

 

I have to wonder if they have ever even seen coral outside of an aquarium.

 

But you claim to know that the ocean temperature has increased? What do you base your claim on.

 

The AR6 is a political document.

— Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response (Anthem Environment and Sustainability Initiative) by Judith Curry
https://a.co/9s84OQo

 

NOAA temperature measurements, (reported yearly, but based on 5-year averages). There are some nice graphs of the data on this site.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/?intent=121

Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth's entire atmosphere.

The effects of ocean warming include sea level rise due to thermal expansion, coral bleaching, accelerated melting of Earth’s major ice sheets, intensified hurricanes*, and changes in ocean health and biochemistry.

 

Where is the ocean surface temperature for the Great Barrier Reef for the last 50 years.

Do you know the difference between heat capacity and temperature?

Do you understand where the heat stored in the oceans comes from? Hint: It’s not transferred from the atmosphere.

 

If you don't know, look it up.

 

I am not making the claim that it has increased resulting in coral “bleaching “. You are claiming coral is being bleached by increased water temperature but don’t know what the temperature change has been.

 

Let’s see how your opinion compares to evidence produced through application of the scientific method and observations published by NASA.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

And.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35799-4

And NASA observations show this between 2000 and 2018.

 

Do your homework if you're actually interested.

 

Do your homework, or ask Santa if you're actually interested.

 

You are making the claim that the ocean covering ghe reef has warmed but you have no data.

 

That's what scientific research and method is about. And it's your choice if you want to believe that Santa bleached the coral using H2O2 and painted the rocks green on the Antarctic Peninsula.

But what is the actual scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

Don’t you love that there is a belief that scientists are somehow not noticing that there is this big ball of gas in the sky….. lols