CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

I can provide as many examples as you would like. Your position is actually listed as a "climate myth."
CO2 is main driver of climate change

Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com › CO2-is-not-the-only-driver...


While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

 

Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar ...

AGU Journals
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full



by NJ Shaviv · 2008 · Cited by 55 — In other words, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative imbalance associated with the solar cycle. ... Shaviv, 2002, 2003; ...

 

Please see #101.

 

That fails badly, as it starts with the bogus assumption that _only_ some sort of solar changes can cause ocean heating.

If you start out pretending greenhouse forcing doesn't exist, it's easy to show greenhouse forcing doesn't exist.

 

How so?

How does a bad paper that tried defining itself as correct excuse you from making up strawmen to attack?

 

And yet the finding was never challenged in the peer-reviewed literature, with which I suggest you acquaint yourself.

 

Not a strawman, and not made up by me.
If CO2 as a cause of temperature increase cannot be established, then I'm not the one with a problem.

 

But since it can, why bring that up?

We directly measure the increased backradiation. Only greenhouse gases can do that.

It's interesting, how your endorsement of "peer-reviewed literature" depends solely on whether you think it agrees with you.

Me, at least I read the paper you linked to and talked about why it failed. You couldn't be bothered to do that. You just declared it had to be correct.

 

Which proves nothing.

 

I read it long ago. That's why I cited it. I'm uninterested in your personal opinion about it. You might ask yourself why no climate scientist agrees with you.

 

CO2's absorption of infrared radiation has nothing to do with its refractive index.

Children -- and most adults -- have been brainwashed with the CO2 narrative.

I know exactly why: its atmosphere is so dense. Google "adiabatic lapse rate" and start reading.

Ask yourself why Mars is so much colder than the earth even though it has more CO2 in its atmosphere. You won't. But you should.

 

Not MY homework either - your paper you defend it!

 

Ergo why it is an ignored bit of pseudoscience fluff only noted by those rely instead on dodgy sites on the internet which have no academic credentials or standing

 

It needs no defense.

 

Oh! But Notrickszone and Whatsupmybutt say it’s real!! Even though neither site has an academic credibility anywhere in the world. I doubt even Judith Curry would touch this one!

 

Except……….who in academia is supporting this?

 

And SKS is right but then not even the IPCC is claiming it is the ONLY driver of climate change. But I am betting you didn’t read past the title did you?

 

Really? The American Geophysical Union (AGU) Journal of Geophysical Research seems to have pretty sound credentials and standing.
And of course the author is a Professor (and past Chairman) of the Raca Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar ...

AGU Journals
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full



by NJ Shaviv · 2008 · Cited by 55 — In other words, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative imbalance associated with the solar cycle. ...

 

No one has said "only." That's mamooth's strawman. Regardless if CO2 causation takes a hit, so does AGW theory.

 

Your argument is with the peer-reviewed research for which they are aggregators.

 

No my argument is for academic standing which is different

 

This paper is not going to overturn 2 centuries of study on the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere

 

when you decide on a permanent site for the goal posts let me know

 

Just published on 13 September. Let's give it a little time.

 

Your post is a non sequitur.
You're the one who claimed the paper was published by dodgy sites on the internet which have no academic credentials or standing. You were wrong, of course.