Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

The nonsense comes from thine. From NOAA/iPCC—->

A comprehensive review of published scientific research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that, averaged over the solar cycle, the best estimate of the Sun’s brightness change between the pre-industrial period and the present (2019) is 0.06 Watts per square meter. That increase could be responsible for about 0.01 degrees Celsius—around 1 percent—of the warming the planet has experienced over the industrial era (0.95–1.2 degrees Celsius in 2011–2020 versus 1850–1900).

 

It's amazing how some people in here will make claims that somebody said something, then be completely unable to provide any kind of quote that they ever said anything of the sort.

Yet another example of Stalin's "Big Lie". Say often enough that somebody said something, and obviously it must be true.

 

Obsolete. The science has passed you by.

 

But the sun hasn’t.

 

Read and learn.
The Sun-Climate Effect

 

And moreover, they are dangerous lies. "Global warming" is always a very vague conversation until one realizes that the purpose is to destroy humanity by crushing CO2 production and the improvements that come with it.

 

Look up this BBC article and you see the source and advent of the narrative. It’s dangerous and 100% false!


How high-profile scientists felt tricked by group denying climate change

 

That BBC article presents apparent evidence of AGW by directing the viewer to their other article which states:

If scientists have actually measured the TOA outgoing radiation instrumentally (i.e. by observation) and found a specific deficit on CO2 absorption wavelengths (as the BBC article appear to be suggesting) then I think that information would be important. One satellite-based observation that claims to have measured a radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases is the peer-reviewed paper titled 'Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing', from Kramer et al (2021):

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

Quote from the paper:

A radiative forcing of 0.5 W/m2 over 15 years does not sound concerning. That would mean that "rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases" are producing a radiative forcing of 0.033 W/m2 per year. That translates to warming at the surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of (288^4+0.033/0.000000056704)^0.25-288 = 0.006C per year. Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.

 

Speaking of media truth, that article is about the Creative Society. Where is your evidence that the Creative Society is the source and advent of the scientific material Jack posted on the sun-climate effect? Or was that just another bald fabrication on your part?

 

As already explained multiple times in clear, simple, grammatical English, the brightness of the sun -- TSI -- is already known not to be a relevant index of the sun's effect on climate because its direct effect is too small to account for the known historical relationship between solar activity and temperature. Other factors related to solar activity -- magnetic fields, the balance of visible and UV radiation, emission of particles, etc. -- have indirect effects that are potentially much larger, although we don't yet understand fully how they work. Pretending that TSI is the only possible factor in the sun's influence on climate is disingenuous anti-science.

 

It's also a valuable tool for those working to create more powerful global governance; the effects (mostly natural randomness) more power to control your life and we'll save you from fires, floods, droughts, rising seas, excessive heat, vanishing polar bears . . .

 

It never fails to stun me when someone argues that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and then turns around and says "the Sun has nothing to do with it". What in the world do the think the CO2 is redirecting back to earth came from? It's like they simply memorize slogans to regurgitate without a minute's time of actual study or thought.

 

Such is life, and we move on from obsolete technologies, just as we moved on from being hunters and gatherers.

 

That's your issue if you prefer to have heat waves, with shade temperatures over 50 degrees and rising oceans as the glaciers and ice caps recede.

 

IF I saw even the slightest evidence any of that would happen I would be worried, I don't. I see a global temperature that has increased about 1.5C since the mid-1900's. A situation easily dealt with without hair-on-fire screaming and shouting. I also see several climatologist saying warming will tapper off and may turn downward by the 2060's. You do know glaciers have receded in the past, right? And re-emerged afterward.

 

Then open your eyes since Blind Freddy can even see the climate changes from that global warming.

And that's why burning fossil fuels is being replaced by renewable energy sources.

That's just the personal opinion of a handful of "climatologists". But in the meantime the increasing number of heatwaves will have shade temperatures of ~50 degrees as already seen this year.

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

 

You're jumping the gun just a bit. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

That's your choice if you just want to be a hunter and gatherer.

 

Then you have the inaccuracy given in their own figures.

0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018

When the "plus or minus" is around 20% of the total figure, one has to take any result from that claim with a huge grain of salt. One might as well be pulling their facts and figures out of thin air. It may be as low as 42, it might be as high as 64. That is a pretty huge difference in something so fractional as 0.53 of anything.

Imagine you were about to be given a medication with that kind of inaccuracy. Where an important but fractional ingredient may vary by 20%. Would you be willing to take it on anything but a life or death basis? I sure as hell would not. Yet, we are supposed to accept these claims with a variance of around 20%.

You see, this is how a skeptic looks at such claims. And unlike so many, I am not a denier, only a skeptic. And such blind faith in such reporting without questioning anything is not science, it is religion.

 

And of much more importance are things like the inclination of the planet to the sun, and the distance because of the eccentricities of the orbit. This can actually be seen rather dramatically on Mars, Now Mars has an orbital eccentricity almost 9 times more than that of the Earth (0.093 vs 0.016), and we can see how much the ice caps grow and shrink. And that is a dead planet with no living ecosphere and ice caps primarily made of CO2.

And our orbit can change drastically, from as low as 0.003 to as high as 0.058. But the major influence on recent ice ages appears to have far more to do with the eccentricity of our planet's orbit than anything else. As Milankovitch pointed out. The eccentricity cycle lengthened, the ice ages lengthened. And if it shortened, the ice ages shortened. And in the last several ice ages, interestingly they both lengthened, yet also grew less severe. As the Wisconsin Ice Sheet was smaller and did not extend as far into the continents as the Illinoian Ice Sheet did. And we can only guestimate much of the Nebraskan Ice Sheet, as the majority of that one was destroyed in the two ice ages that followed it. But what evidence we do have it that it was larger than the one that followed it.

And on that basis, most who study glaciation tend to believe that the next cycle will be even smaller than the Wisconsin. Each one seems to be smaller, as if the planet is slowly finding a new temperature balance. And none of that had a damned thing to do with humans.

 

Was the boiling frog a skeptic or a denier?
https://www.sciencealert.com/human-...iling-frog-phenomenon-climate-scientists-warn

 

The funny thing is, that is largely a figure that people pull out of their arse to frighten others.

Now temperatures reaching that high in local areas, that is actually not uncommon at all. We actually know that much of the land during Gondwana was about that high. But globally? Just a hair over 25c in the late Permian and in the early Cenozoic seem to be the records. And we are still significantly below that.



Is it any wonder that most of these fearmongers hate geologists, and are constantly fighting them? They want everybody to completely ignore the real history of the planet, and only believe what they tell them of the last century.

 

Who's "Blind Freddy"?

It takes years if not decades to identify change from random occurrence.

None of your links is from a recognized scientific source - just more climate alarmist mumbo-jumbo. Heat waves are random occurrences.

 

Hell, there is a challenge I have been giving them for over a decade. And I have yet to ever have one of them give me a valid response.

We know that over the last two decades, we have seen average temperatures both rise and fall. And yet, the fearmongers claim their predictions are always exactly correct. Even showing predictions they have given of the temperatures falling, and sure enough they did.

But want to know what they never seem to be able to produce? Such a prediction of falling temperatures before they happen. Each and every single one of them only predicts things getting hotter, and never cooler. And in the past few years we have had some significant cooling. So where exactly was that predicted and published before it happened?

Funny how they will claim them after the fact, but their actual predictions only seem to ever go one way and never another.