CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

And the data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong. It's as simple as that. The intensity of your faith in your theory doesn't make it less wrong.

If that was the case, your argument made zero sense. The topic being discussed was what historically caused warming, not what caused it in the past few decades.

This is why it's good to be on the rational side. We tell the simple truth all the time, so we never get tangled up and embarrassed.

 

Sorry, but you can't just wave the data away. I'm not the one who's tangled up.
In the industrial era there have been periods when temperatures have risen rapidly with negligible CO₂ emissions (1700-1750), and decreasing temperatures while CO₂ emissions were rising (1880-1900, 1950-1970). When including all these counter-alignments together and differencing the time series (cross-correlation), the CO₂→T trend alignment disappears.

 

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. The evidence is unequivocal that CO2 lags temperature -- i.e., that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere correlates much better with previous than with succeeding temperatures. That proves that the correlation of CO2 with temperature in the paleoclimate record is caused by temperature's effect on CO2 (via the known and indisputable physical mechanism of its solubility in sea water), not vice versa. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the oceans contain about 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere, and the effect of temperature on CO2's solubility therefore controls atmospheric CO2, not vice versa.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. The explanation is the multimillennial high in solar activity seen in the 20th century, just as the explanation for the Little Ice Age was the multimillennial low in solar activity in the 14th-19th centuries.

No, that is just more absurd and disingenuous garbage from you. There is nothing magical about the fact that the earth gets all its heat from the sun, and the sun's variability is therefore the default cause of changes in the earth's temperature, not CO2 -- the empirical "evidence" for whose warming effect is extremely tenuous, when it isn't outright fraudulent.

The real hard data, as many papers linked here by Jack confirm, show that solar activity is the control knob of global temperature, not CO2.

Silliness. It is KNOWN that solar activity was at a multimillennial high in the 20th century. The notion that it couldn't have affected the earth's temperature is absurd.

 

No it doesn't. That is just another bald falsehood from you. Jack has provided links to articles that have referenced hundreds of peer-reviewed papers showing that the data do not support the CO2 narrative. So your theory is wrong. It's as simple as that. The intensity of your faith in your theory doesn't make it less wrong.

Science says like causes have like effects, and like effects generally have like causes. Those who stump for the CO2 narrative are science deniers.

No, I have identified several bald falsehoods you have told just in the last few days.

 

Gasp! How can they be wrong? After all they got their information from that well known source “Sum bloke on da internetz”

 

And what was the sun doing during those periods?

what were the tropical trade winds doing? Was it an El Niño Cycle or a La Niña? What was the Indian Ocean Dipole doing? What volcanic activity was happening?

 

That's a fabrication on your part. Inevitably.

 

Why would it matter? The IPCC has stated that solar variation has no discernible effect on global surface temperature, and you know that everything the IPCC says always has to be true, and anyone who disagrees with its conclusions is a climate science denier.

Who cares? Only CO2 affects global surface temperature, right?

 

I know! It is hard to fathom how anyone can get the basic facts so wrong. Trouble is they get all the information off of sites like faux news who tell them the conspiracy theories that they lap up with relish

 

Well THAT is a misrepresentation of what the IPCC actually says

 

You confronted me with an uneducated opinion.

 

It's fun to see you citing solar influence as a driver of warming.

 

This thread really has our alarmist friends flummoxed. As for where the information came from, here's a refresher:
Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023

 

Then you should be able to quote the IPCC's estimate of the effect of solar variation on global surface temperature.

Thought not.

 

But not an unreasoned or uninformed one....

 

LOL.. The only uneducated opinion is that which you are currently trying to assert. Brava darling.

 

I will allow you that.

He has thought about it and probably made the best judgment he can with his mindset and restricted information.

 

I think climate scientists from here need to hang up their shingles with this compelling paper. It's all solved. Clearly.

 

You could demonstrate that you've read IPCC report by citing it yourself.

 

Not yet, but this is a crack in the dam. There are many reputations and interests that will need to shift. That will take time.

 

Of course, the dam is about to crack...just around the corner.

 

“Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

“Because scientists are reasonable men, one or another argument will ultimately persuade many of them. But there is no single argument that can or should persuade them all. Rather than a single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

But so does the IPCC, who despite claims from Faux pundits DOES include solar influence in its models

PS so does NASA and the imperial college of London etc etc etc

What you think climate scientists have just missed noticing the big ball of fire in the sky?

 

Apropos of nothing

But keep on - it is entertaining to watch someone try to introduce a sixty year old text into a modern discussion on climate change

 

Sorry, but the IPCC has not.
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion



This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar).