Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

Is consistent with

And that is true but how do your cut and paste rubbish actually debunk that. And this time no further cut and paste - you actually have to extract the pertinent point and debate

 

Correlation =/= causation.
If the CO2 is not causing the temperature rise then there's no point in reducing coal, oil or gas use. And "net zero" is just stupid.
You don't like the "cut and paste" because it speaks to causation.

 

Ok, what have you done with the REAL WiilReadMore - the one we all know worships peer reviews like the Holy Grail.

 

I stand by everything I wrote.

 

False equivalence fallacy. Earth is not a person and space is not a blanket.

Putting a blanket over a rock doesn't make the rock any warmer. So what's so special about a person?? Oh, that's right... a person is a SOURCE OF THERMAL ENERGY (while Earth is not).

Wow.

 

I've provided you with the science, but you don't want to hear any of it.

 

... which continues to evade the nagging question: Assuming constant output from the Sun, where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from? Is it spontaneously being created out of nothing? That's what you (and the Church of Global Warming) seem to believe.

You can't say where it comes from, nor can anybody else say where it comes from, because it's just a religious belief that isn't based in any sort of science whatsoever. In fact, it actually denies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and any attempts to defend that 'core belief' only dig a deeper hole into science denial.

 

Putting frost cloth over plants is a well known method of agriculture used to protect plants from the cold. Adding a layer of cloth slows radiation.

It doesn't have to be a blanket to make a difference.

Earth's temperature results from a balance between arriving solar radiation and and departing IR. Slowing that IR while not impeding arriving solar radiation is a method of warming Earth..

 

Keep preaching that Church sermon!!

 

This is not from me. It's from climatological scientists from around the world.

I AM surprised that you surrendered so easily. I thought you would fight back against the findings of climatologists.

 

Oh yup... "those people" "out there" "somewhere".

I've surrendered nothing. My question still stands: Assuming constant output from the Sun, where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from?

You've chosen to deny the very definition of temperature, falsely claiming that no additional thermal energy is required in order to raise the temperature of something.

TOO FUNNY!!

 

Exactly. If heat input is constant and heat outflow is further limited, Earth WILL get warmer.

 

Continued denial of thermodynamics. (e.g. - the definition of temperature, the need for more thermal energy to increase temperature, the direction of heat from hot to cold)

Continued denial of stefan boltzmann. (e.g. - radiance and temperature are directly proportionate... less radiance means lower temperature, NOT higher)

 

Who are you trying to argue with?

I suggest you write and publish a paper so that you can fix the climate scientists from around the world.

 

I'm teaching science to the people who are willing to learn it.

 

Well, you're missing your audience!!

You need to address the climate scientists around the world who are clearly not anywhere near as smart as you are.

That's why I suggest you publish a paper in a science journal.

 

Nah, I'm hitting my audience just fine.

It doesn't matter what some unnamed "climate scientist" supposedly says. The Laws of Thermodynamics remain the same. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law remains the same. One is either unlearned in what those laws are, willfully denying those laws in favor of peddling a physics-denying religion, or willfully accepting those laws as the science that they are. You (and the unnamed "climate scientists" who you keep referring to) keep doing #2. I keep doing #3.

It doesn't matter whether I do so or not. My doing so (or not doing so) has ZERO effect on the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. They remain science regardless. Have you falsified any of those laws by any chance? Care to share with us how they've been falsified?

 

Right. You don't have to listen to actual climate scientists.

But, I would point out that the majority of climate scientists don't agree with you.

They agree with the laws you enumerate, but not with how you are applying them.

 

But the evidence that CO2 affects the temperature stretches back over a century! Heck! Even “mythbusters” proved it!

 

Doesn’t make you right

 

And once upon a time evidence showed the Sun orbited the Earth.
Follow the science.
New Study: 90% Of Recent Warming Is From Shortwave Cloud Forcing…Humans Contributed 0.03°C
By Kenneth Richard on 8. May 2023

Share this...
Data analysis again reveals the increase in absorbed shortwave forcing has been driving modern climate change since the 1970s. CO2 changes are more of an effect than a cause of temperature increases.
Scientists have for years been pointing to the causality sequencing problem inherent in the claim that CO2 is the driver of temperature changes.

The sequencing observation clearly supports the conclusion that variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months (Humlum et al., 2013, Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022). Effects can only lag – not lead – causes.

Wang et al. (2013) further estimate only 10% of the variance in global CO2 growth rates can be explained by fossil fuel emissions. Instead, there is a “strong and persistent coupling (r² ≈ 0.50) between interannual variations of the CO2 growth rate and tropical land-surface temperature during 1959-2011.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013
Building on this temperature→CO2 directional causality, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi (2023), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, have used existing CO2 and temperature data to calculate an 83 ppm CO2 increase associated with a 1°C surface temperature increase. The authors suggest this 83 ppm/°C value is consistent with Henry’s Law and CO2 residence time calculations.

Kauppinen and Malmi further assess the warming in recent decades has been predominantly (90%) driven by the increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the downward trend in cloud cover.

The greenhouse effect has contributed just 10% to the warming trend, and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration changes is only a fraction (hundredths of a degree) of that 10% impact – about 0.03°C since 1980.

Thus, not only is the “causality used in IPCC reports wrong,” but “the greenhouse effect cannot explain climate change.”

“Since 1970, according to the observations, the changes of the low cloud cover have caused practically the observed temperature changes. The low cloud cover has gradually decreased starting in 1975. The human contribution was about 0.01°C in 1980 and now it is close 0.03°C.”


Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023

 

I post opinions. They are what they are. You didn't change mine.

 

Yeah you might hit my DBR list yet - Don’t Bother Reading

 

I welcome that.

 

Right, because "actual climate scientists" (whoever you're supposedly referring to) are not the laws of science themselves.

An irrelevant claim based on a completely fabricated number. Science is not a consensus. Science is NOT a popularity contest. Rather, science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Nope. They outright deny the laws, just as you do.