Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Because it contains no attempt to quantify the effect, there is a sign on that question that says, "Propaganda, not science."

 

The short answer for right now is that the deus ex machina of human activity is unnecessary to explain the warming. The longer answer will arrive in parts 2 and 3 of the cited/linked presentation.

 

So how did YOU measure solar activity in 1700 and 11,000 years ago.

And what on Earth has that got to do with the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

1. Past solar activity

The Sun’s activity is recorded in the tree rings through the action of cosmic rays. A constant stream of cosmic rays from the galaxy reaches the solar system. Some interact with the atmosphere. Some collide with nitrogen in the atmosphere, converting it to carbon-14, which is heavier than normal carbon-12 and radioactive. This carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form radioactive CO₂, which is breathed by trees. The carbon is used in photosynthesis to make cellulose, which allows the tree trunk to grow in diameter. When the tree dies, the carbon-14 in the wood slowly decays over centuries and millennia. You just have to measure how much carbon-14 is left in the wood to know how much time has passed since the tree died.

Each growth ring of a tree records the carbon-14 that was in the atmosphere that year, and scientists have used millennia-old trees and preserved logs to construct a calibration curve that spans tens of thousands of years. This allows them to determine the age of any organic remains, even if it is not a tree trunk, just by knowing the carbon-14 it contains. This is known as radiocarbon dating.



The only problem is that the production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays is not constant. The Sun’s magnetic field deflects the path of cosmic rays, causing many to miss the Earth, and changes in the Sun’s activity affect its magnetic field.

As the Sun’s activity increases, fewer cosmic rays arrive, less carbon-14 is produced, and organic remains appear older because they contain less of it. When the Sun’s activity becomes weaker, more cosmic rays arrive, more carbon-14 is produced, and the organic remains look younger because they contain more of it.



This produces deviations in the calibration curve that allow us to know what the Sun’s activity was in the past.

 

IOW you have no evidence to support your hypothesis as usual.

 

No, that's just baldly false, like almost everything else you say, because there are no proven hypotheses about climate change. All we have are unproven ones.

No, you prefer to cherry-pick the results and conclusions and accept only those from the dishonest and incompetent "scientists" who push the CO2 climate narrative, and ignore the results and conclusions of the honest, competent scientists who are skeptical about it.

 

No, you just repeat a bald falsehood as usual.

 

IOW you have no actual scientific evidence to support your claims about historical solar activity.

But what on Earth has that got to do with the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

None of that usual puff and guff changes the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

So what is your scientific evidence that there isn't a strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime, and that there is a strong correlation between solar activity and increases in global temperatures within your lifetime as you hypothesize?

 

There is no such strong correlation; but there is a much stronger correlation between the increase in temperature from January to March and purchases of chocolate. Does that mean buying chocolate makes it warmer?

 

There is no such strong correlation, as already proved, and correlation does not prove causation. As I have already told you multiple times, the paleoclimate record clearly shows that CO2 correlates better with previous than with subsequent temperatures, proving that temperature affects CO2 more than CO2 affects temperature. And we know quite precisely how much temperature affects CO2 because we know exactly how temperature affects the solubility of CO2 in seawater.

 

IOW you know at all about science and scientific methodology apart from attending some science classes in school 50 years ago
So what has eating chocolate got to do with the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

IOW you have no evidence to support your claim. And what on Earth has the paleoclimate got to do with the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

If you had any actual post-secondary education in science (you don't), you would be aware that your lifetime is an arbitrary and unscientific interval; but you were probably alive for most of the period from the early 1940s to the early 1970s when temperature and atmospheric CO2 moved strongly in opposite directions. Temperature and CO2 also moved strongly in opposite directions from 2016 to 2022.

My lifetime is not long enough to establish that correlation because solar activity has been at a sustained, multi-millennium high since before I was born. If you had any actual post-secondary education in scientific treatment of statistics (you don't), you would be aware of the problem of restriction of the range in measuring correlations.

 

So what evidence do you have to support your claim that atmospheric CO2 has reduced from 2016 to 2022?

 

Marcott, S.A., et al., 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339 (6124), pp.1198-1201.

 

None. The correlation has no importance.

 

No, I have kept up quite well in certain fields, especially atmospheric physics.

They have the same epistemological status: spurious correlation.

I've already refuted that graph for you several times: the data have been altered to remove the cooling period from the early 1940s to the 1970s; the more recent data are either uncorrected or under-corrected for non-CO2 effects on temperature readings like urban heating, land use changes, and contrails; and the graph ends at the El Nino peak in 2016, before the sustained downturn in temperature from 2016-22. It's nothing but propaganda.

 

A baseless claim. End of previous ice age, the temperature increase was even more rapid.

 

So how did they measure global temperatures 11,300 years ago, and did they use thermometers or just their fingers?

But what on Earth has that got to do with the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity within my lifetime?

 

No, you just spew the same false and disingenuous claim, as usual.

It's quite despicable, actually.

 

The paper is linked. Read it.
The correlation you cite is unimportant.

 

That question is typical of deceitful anti-fossil-fuel nonscience because it says nothing about how much warming has increased because of human CO2 emissions. If CO2 has only increased the rate of warming by 1%, that makes your implication technically true, but completely removes any rationale for reducing CO2 emissions. You might as well hang a sign on it that says, "Propaganda, not science."

 

And what did you actually learn from your school lessons about atmospheric physics 50 years ago?
Alas you have presented no scientific evidence to support your claim that there has been deceasing global temperatures between 2016-22. And if so, is that the reason why our bureau of meteorology recently added another colour to it's temperature maps for temperatures above 45 degrees?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/