Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Wrong. You claimed that the Antarctic temperature hasn't changed over the last 200 years in post #694 and previous posts.

 

Yes you did. You have made numerous objectively false claims in this exchange, and I have patiently corrected them for you.

Right. And it did not ABSORB the energy, it came into existence with that energy.

Actually, we are pretty sure that supernovas created almost all the heavy elements.

Leave serious science to others.

 

So why is the greening of the Antarctic Peninsula increasing?

 

Its known fertilization and drought-resistance effects on plants, and the fact that agricultural production has increased and deserts shrunk as atmospheric CO2 has increased. These causal mechanisms are incomparably better established than the claimed effect of CO2 on global surface temperature in the CO2 climate narrative, which is totally reliant on absurdly overestimated water vapor feedback.

 

That is correct.

 

I already explained that to you, very clearly and patiently, in simple, grammatical English. Here it is again: CO2 has both a fertilization effect and a drought-resistance effect on plants, which is why deserts are shrinking globally. Antarctica has the lowest precipitation of any continent because it is so cold.

 

I already explained that to you, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English: CO2 has both a fertilization effect and a drought-resistance effect, which is why deserts are shrinking globally. Antarctica has the lowest precipitation of any continent because it is so cold.

 

What is your evidence that solar activity has rapidly increased in the last 100 years and is the cause of the recent global heating and not the glass-house effect from increased atmospheric CO2 due to human activity?

 

That's just your personal opinion. Do you have any actual experimental research data to support your claims, and that higher global CO2 from human activity is shrinking deserts?

 

No you aren't. You self-evidently don't know any of the relevant science.

Right.

Wrong. Climate change has been modest, and almost entirely natural. A great increase in long-term average solar activity, from the lowest to the highest levels in thousands of years, has simply returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, which the deceitful call, "pre-industrial."

Wrong. We don't know if global warming will increase because we can't yet predict what the sun will do. Methane release has never caused significant global warming any of the previous times it is known to have happened in response to natural millennium-scale warming episodes, and it won't this time.

 

Then show us the actual temperature records to support your claim that the average temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have not increased over the last 200 years?

 

Ad I stated the data has been posted up thread and is available to all.

 

That's just your personal opinion, and there are thousands of professional scientists and climatologists who disagree with you

 

Which post did you post the actual temperature data for the Antarctic Peninsula?

 

You are completely capable of finding it.

 

What is the post number?

 

Wait, what? You don't even know that? Read and learn:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-023-00036-z/figures/1

Solar activity peaked in 1960, but has remained above historical averages since then. The current cycle, #25, has been unusually active, one of the strongest ever seen, which is why we are hitting new post-Little-Ice-Age temperature highs.

Maybe because we get all our heat from the sun, and climate has tracked solar activity over the long term?

Because CO2 is much better correlated with previous temperature than subsequent temperature in the paleoclimate record, and adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its infrared absorption properties. There is simply no plausible physical mechanism whereby CO2 could have a significant effect on global surface temperature.

 

IOW you have no evidence to support your claim that the recent increase in global warming isn't caused by the glass-house effect from increasing Atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

 

No, that claim is false. You seem to make a lot of baldly false claims. My statement was of known and thoroughly established scientific facts.

Are you really unaware of the fact that CO2 is plant food, and greenhouse operators add it to the air in their greenhouses for that reason?? You may not be aware of its drought-resistance effect because that is less well known; higher atmospheric CO2 enables plants to reduce the number of leaf pores needed to get enough CO2 from the air to support growth, and the leaf pores also release water into the air. So more CO2 means plants need less water.

 

No, your claim is objectively false, as usual. I just stated the evidence for you. Here it is again:
Because CO2 is much better correlated with previous temperature than subsequent temperature in the paleoclimate record, and adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its infrared absorption properties. There is simply no plausible physical mechanism whereby CO2 could have a significant effect on global surface temperature.

Clear?

 

It doesn't matter how rapidly they have risen if they don't correlate well with subsequent temperatures, which they don't.

 

I did my PhD in plant physiology, and am well aware of how plants grow. But what is your evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 shrinks deserts.

 

Probably recent local wind conditions, which have blown sea ice onshore. The fact that the reduction was so sudden, after decades of effectively no change, or even increase, indicates that global warming -- which has been caused by increased solar activity, not CO2 -- is not a relevant cause.

 

That's just your personal opinion. What actual scientific evidence do you have to support your claim that atmospheric CO2 and CH4 etc don't have a greenhouse effect on global temperature.

 

Uh-huh. Sure you did. Then why are you unaware of the fact that increased CO2 enables plants to endure drought conditions by reducing the number of their leaf pores and thus conserving water?

For the fourth time, it increases both plant growth and drought resistance. Can't you read?