Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

The correlation (simultaneity) between windmill activity and wind velocity does not imply that wind is caused by windmills. It is rather the other way around.

 

Unsourced = Unimportant.

 

Whenever the alarmists are exposed to the light of day they don't look good.
Rockefellers Have a Bad Day at The Senate Budget Committee
Mandi Risko
In the wake of the Biden administration’s LNG pause, numerous Democrats have called out the importance of natural gas and rebuked their own party for turning against a needed economic…

 

Ah, yeah, it does actually, as you would know if you had any science education beyond high school, or had done well in that.

 

So why did sea surface temperature fall for ~30y after the early 1940s, just when CO2 was rising rapidly? Is that what you mean by a "strong correlation between temperature and CO2"?

 

Well, they've also claimed that more than 100% of recent climate change has been caused by CO2....

 

I am trending more and more to the idea that your absurd, disingenuous blather is deliberately calculated to make the CO2 climate narrative look irrational and indefensible.

 

TSI is known not to be a relevant index of the effect of solar activity on climate, which is why the CO2 climate narrative requires that no other index be permitted.

 

I am trending more and more to the idea that your absurd, disingenuous blather is deliberately calculated to make the CO2 climate narrative look irrational and indefensible.

 

delete

 

Great graph - blows away the denialist “Sunspot” theory.

 

Great graph - blows away the denialist “It’s not warming” claims.

 

And exactly how many of us are denying it is warming?

That is something that Stalin called "The Big Lie".

 

Speaking only for myself, the claim would be that the trend since 2016 has turned to cooling. The graph you like so much would support that.

 

I think that is what the CAGW-crowd is doing. They rely on the sunspot number for their TSI reconstructions and TSI reconstructions relying predominantly on sunspot records alone might inadequately represent the complete magnitude and fluctuations of the TSI index. TSI reconstructions by proper scientists like Hoyt and Schatten (1993) incorporate a wide array of proxy values for estimating solar irradiance, including sunspot-cycle amplitude, sunspot-cycle length, solar equatorial-rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and the decay rate of the approximate eleven-year sunspot cycle. Their TSI study correlates very well with global temperature records (see the recent paper by Willie Soon et al 2024).

 

Your post is uninformed nonsense.
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.

 

So how did you count the number of sunspots 11,000 years ago, and did you personally count them then, or did you count them on a photograph taken back then?

And how did you measure the temperature then?

 

But the anti-science deniers will still continue with their bluff and guff and fluff, and just personally attack the messenger as usual, and pretend they actually counted the number of sunspots and measured the air and water temperatures thousands of years ago.

 

From what I gather estimations for ancient sunspot activity is inferred through radiocarbon dating, beryllium-10 dating, and cosmogenic isotope records. Wikipedia explains this. Something tells me that you’re not being entirely serious Mitty.

 

And the intensity of the heatwaves from global warming will become even more severe, and the temperature maps will add the colour "black" for shade temperatures above 50 degrees. And as already seen as the spring temperatures in the Philippines already hits 53 degrees. And will the temperatures in New York hit 50 degrees this summer, even though the number of sunspots and penumbral spots hasn't changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southeast_Asia_heat_wave
https://www.reuters.com/world/india...peratures-may-weather-office-says-2024-05-01/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...itable-climate-change-urban-planning/12993580

 

And did the flying pigs count the number of sunspots and measure the global temperatures and C14 & Be10 11,000 years ago too?
And what actual scientific evidence do you have that the number of sunspots has any significant effect on our temperatures anyway, given the variability in solar intensity from sunspots is less than 0.1% and rejected by professional scientists as a cause of the recent increases in global temperatures?
https://theconversation.com/four-gr...blame-climate-change-on-solar-activity-130154
https://theconversation.com/climate...-a-bit-but-not-as-much-as-other-things-145101

 

No. That is an absurd load of already-refuted nonscience. The graph shows that sunspot activity remains well above the historical average of 1880-1930, and that goes particularly for the last two years, which are not on the graph because they refute the CO2 climate narrative. Going back before the period of the graph, solar activity has not been at a level comparable to the sustained high of the last 100 years for thousands of years. It is the absurd and dishonest CO2 climate narrative that insists that when your house is at 20C, and you turn the thermostat down from 25C to 23C, the house should get colder. It's just idiotic nonscience.

 

No. There may be some sort of dishonest "heat" calculation that can be manipulated to above 50C, but there will continue to not be significantly more actual shade temperatures that high than there were in the early 1940s.

No, that's just another fabrication on your part. It was a "heat index" that hit 53 in the Philippines, not an actual temperature. Heat indexes are even easier to manipulate to show higher numbers than temperatures are: just change how the index is calculated.

What do you mean, they haven't changed? Solar activity has been unusually high for two years. Your claims continue to be objectively false. That is normal, routine, and expected from those pushing the CO2 climate narrative.

 

Unlike you, people who have some science education above high school level are aware of the fact that conditions in the remote past can be inferred from proxy data.

That is a strawman fallacy. No informed person claims that sunspots affect climate. Sunspots are just an index of solar activity that happen to have been observed for centuries because they are easy to count without a lot of high-tech instrumentation.

Solar intensity -- TSI -- is not the relevant factor. That is why "professional scientists" who push the CO2 climate narrative rather than actual climate research demand that no other index of solar activity be permitted in research on the sun's effect on climate. But professional scientists who actually want to understand climate rather than push a dishonest narrative are agreed that solar activity is strongly linked to the direction of temperature changes.

 

And during a heat wave now with shade temperatures over 50 degrees, you can even cook an egg and boil a kettle on your car's roof.