Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

That's merely another baldly false claim about what climate realists have said.

 

If you have a hotplate powered by the battery....

 

No, you are the one pretending anyone has said that when they certainly have not. That is why you can never actually quote people saying what you falsely and disingenuously claim they have said. It's disgraceful.

 

And as the shade temperatures go on to 55 degrees the car roof temperatures will exceed 100 degrees, and even the bluff 'n guff anti-science deniers might even be able to cook a steak on the roof without needing a hotplate either.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...itable-climate-change-urban-planning/12993580

 

Jaworowski et al (1997) provides one possible theory (which may or may not be correct, I have not done his calculations):

Here: https://21sci-tech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

Quote:

"The IPCC estimated that the temperature of the surface waters increased between 1910 and 1988 by about 0.6°C. A similar increase was observed in the surface air temperature in this period. Increasing the average temperature of the surface of the oceanic waters (15°C) by 0.6°C, would decrease the solubility of CO2 in these waters (0.1970 g CO2 per 100 g) by about 2 percent. The CO2 flux from the ocean to the atmosphere should be increased by the same factor; that is, by about 1.9 GtC/year. This is similar to the observed average increase of atmospheric CO2 in the years 1958 to 1968, of 0.73 ppmv/year which corresponds to 1.6 GtC/year. The measured annual atmospheric CO2 increases were higher in the next two decades (2.5 GtC/year and 3.4 GtC/year ) which indicates that changes in CO2 solubility in oceanic water were responsible only for a part of observed CO2 increases".

 

None of that, however, changes the fact that there is a strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and zero correlation with solar activity which has even shown a negative trend recently.

 

But I quoted a paper that calculates a considerable amount of the CO2 increase to CO2 outgassing from the oceans. Is he wrong? Maybe?

You are just making things up.

 

Even if what you say is true, recent temperature changes can be explained by the decrease in cloud-cover.

 

Nope!!!

 

Why?

 

"which indicates that changes in CO2 solubility in oceanic water were responsible only for a part of observed CO2 increases".

So what's the correlation coefficient for the correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and solar intensity during my lifetime?

 

So what caused the change in cloud cover, and where was the cloud cover and temperature measured? And what came first - the chicken or the egg?

 

Regardless, his calculations still imply that human CO2-emissions still cannot be responsible for all of it. The IPCC tell us that 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from humans. Obviously, this cannot be the case, because the oceans have warmed which would release CO2 into the atmosphere. Other contributions to the atmospheric CO2 increase could be changes in biogenic activity, volcanic emissions, and such.

Not sure about that, but the correlation between temperature and TSI is strong. See graph below. The graph below is adapted from Hoyt and Schatten 1993 (updated by Scafetta and Wilson 2014).

 

No-one knows for sure what caused the change in cloud-cover to the best of my knowledge. Some scientists, such as Henrik Svensmark, have argued (convincingly) that clouds could be responsible for global warming. See the documentary ‘The Cloud Mystery’. Svensmark argues that cosmic rays promote the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs). As cosmic rays shoot into our atmosphere they produce atmospheric ions which promote the formation of CCNs which in turn affects (especially low) cloud-cover and thus the temperature. Regardless though, clouds explain the temperature rise, so why do you want to blame human CO2-emissions?

Measured by satellites. A global change.

 

So what evidence do you have that there has been increases in volcanic emissions and biogenic activity apart from human activity in my life time?
And none of that changes the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in my lifetime.

 

I accept the consensus of professional scientists that the recent increases in global temperatures are caused by the green-house effect from increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

 

Changes. There's been a large decline in phytoplankton over the last 50 years. Dinoflagellates have decreased by 5% per decade since the 1960s while the quantities of holoplankton fell by 7% per decade. Nelson (2015) points out that “Ocean phytoplankton (plants) may be diminishing in large quantities (up to 40%) since 1950. A reduction in ocean phytoplankton respiration lowers the amount of 12C ‘removed’ thereby decreasing the isotope ratio [which is what we currently observe happening in the atmosphere] while simultaneously increasing the CO2 concentration”. Meanwhile, according to Jaworowski et al (1992) if all biological activity in the ocean were removed “the partial pressure of CO2 would increase by a factor of 5. Hence variations in marine biologic activity alone could account for larger variations in atmospheric CO2 than anthropogenic contributions from burning fossil fuels at the current rate”.

Geologist Timothy Casey estimates that the CO2-emission rate of marine volcanoes is over 400 Gts per year which is 10 times greater than what humans emit yearly. Also: "According to Segalstad (1996) outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and volcanoes better explains the isotope change. The isotope change suggests a leaner 13C source such as oceanic and volcanic CO2. These sources have δ13C values of -10 and -5 respectively which are leaner than anthropogenic CO2 at -29. For example, from a pre-industrial δ13C value of -7, a 36% increase in oceanic CO2 in the atmosphere, a 2% increase in anthropogenic CO2 and a 12% increase in volcanic CO2 would change the δ13C value to around -8.3 (the same as what we observe in the atmosphere). This is just an example and these numbers can be played around with".

 

You mean this "consensus"?

 

That's your issue, not mine!!!

 

And none of that changes the strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity in my lifetime, including deforestation etc.

 

Okay. I'm pretty sure you're trolling me now.

 

I'm pretty sure you're trolling me now.

 

You're funny, but I doubt you're serious when it comes to debating AGW.

 

I have no reason whatsoever not to accept the consensus of professional scientists that increases in global temperatures and climate change are caused by the green house effect from increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity in my lifetime.

 

It's far from a Consensus it's BS. Lies, questionable assumption, fake "science"