Get used to it.

I can't discuss this with two dedicated deniers who don't know what they are talking about.
No wonder Trump finds it easy to recruit them.
As I said, there are now so few like them that thankfully they don't count.
I will NOT be set up with lies and then opposed. I expect honest debate in this forum. What reductions in CO2 emissions during Covid? And over a tiny 2 year period?
Give it a rest of course there wasn't any discernable effect. The 1.5 degree change in the earth's temperature took 200 years!.
If you can't figure that out by yourself, I don't want to waste my time on this with you.
Now what colour is that blue ball?

 

I voted against Trump twice.
And your argument in the matter of temperature and CO2 is both contrary to basic physics and mistakes cause for effect.
No one here is lying, but only one of us understands the science.

 

Indeed.
Only one.
Frankly with your understanding of where fossil fuels and CO2 comes from, I am not surprised.

 

Look.
Your article didn't say temperature created more CO2.
You cannot create more CO2 unless you can push one carbon atom and 2 oxygen atom together. Natural temperature doesn't do that.
Living vegetation takes naturally occurring CO2 out of the air and stores it.

Living vegetation stores CO2 and releases oxygen.
The balance of these is what keeps the temperature of the planet at a level wherein life can flourish.
Too much CO2 forms a blanket in the atmosphere. It lets heat in but not out as easily.
The more CO2 released into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes.
CO2 is one of the naturally occurring gases formed mostly by living organisms and by animals breathing.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-...xide is added to,and the production of cement.

Not by raising temperatures!!

 

The marina where I keep my boat has two concrete pillars with high and low tide marks. They are as accurate today as they were when the pillars were built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's.

 

FYI

https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/...uman-caused-climate-change/?article_id=772662

IOW rising temps RELEASE Co2 which has always been there in storage.
It doesn't cause CO2 to be created.

 

There is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature.
The author here is Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

1. THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE ICE CORE CARBON DIOXIDE TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS
   ... discussion about the clear correlation between CO 2 and temperature, as is obtained in ice cores. To quote, he says the following when ... and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO 2 content. The same correlations, ...
   
   shaviv - 16/01/2012 - 14:28 - 28 comments
   
   
2. DOES THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE LAG CO2? MORE FLAWS IN THE SHAKUN ET AL. PAPER IN NATURE.
   ... al. in Nature . It allegedly demonstrates that the global temperature followed CO 2 around the warming associated with the last ... is the northern hemisphere sensitivity to Milankovitch which drives the rest of the climate change, but no one really understand how it ...
   

 

I replied directly to your source, which has Been shown to be almost completely false
Please dont move the goalposts.

 

Sorry, but I don't think you understand why your claim cannot be true.

 

READ THE LINK.

 

Sorry, but your link presents a mere tautology.

 

You know, there are moments in discourse when it becomes clear that one member of it is dishonest.
So would you like to point out exactly where the "tautology" is in the link I provided which clearly and directly calls your "information" mostly false?
Just so you can show us that it really is "tautology".

Just to be sure, this is the definition of tautology I am working with. Either definition will do.

tautology
/tɔːˈtɒlədʒi/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession ).
   PSimilar:
   repetition
   
   repetitiveness
   repetitiousness
   reiteration
   
   redundancy
   
   superfluity
   
   periphrasis
   
   iteration
   
   duplication
   
   wordiness
   long-windedness
   prolixity
   verbiage
   
   verbosity
   
   LOGIC
2. a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

 

BTW: Your own link refutes your original claim. Here's the tautology.
From your link:
"We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth. If higher temperatures lead to more CO2 it does not negate the fact that CO2 leads to higher temperatures. As ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere, In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Rising CO2 levels make the temperature higher than it otherwise would have been."
Basically: CO2 increases temperature because CO2 increases temperature.

 

I explained this to you!
You tried to say heat increased the amount of CO2 . It doesn't. It RELEASES CO2 locked in vegetation. I told you this.
And that quote you include above is not tautology. Don't try to tell an English teacher what it is anymore than teaching a doctor what a virus is.

 

Sorry, but it's a tautology. And your posts don't support your claim to be an English teacher.
And btw, CO2 dissolved in the ocean is not CO2 in vegetation.

 

Expect the EPA to put a bounty on your "pillars with high and low tide marks".

 

OK.
I am not going to put up with your evasion and calling me a liar.
CO2 is CO2 for heavens sake. It is the name of a chemical compound. It is the same compound that you breathe out as that trapped in vegetation.

Go do your homework.

And learn how to accept being wrong

you are now ignored. I will NOT be accused of lying about 40 years of my life and the part I played in helping students into Oxbridge.
This form forbids me to tell you what I now think of you.

.

 

Do not EVER call me a liar.
Even if you are drowning in CO2 and the English language.
Get a grip.

 

As you wish.

 

You may have helped students into "Oxbridge" But I GRADUATED from West Point. If you are attempting to how off the depth of your education by stating that we exhale CO2, then all you have verified is that you studied science in the 4th grade.
And I never called called you a liar. Your information is tainted, but I never impugned your character.

 

Another competing source of warming to jostle CO2 aside:

Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2
By Kenneth Richard on 10. November 2022

Share this...
An increase in effective radiative forcing from human activity is now said to be mostly driven by a decline in aerosol pollution, superseding the effects of CO2 emissions.
The majority of an alleged acceleration in anthropogenic global warming in the 21st century “is driven by changes in the the aerosol [effective radiative forcing] trend, due to aerosol emissions reductions” (Jenkins et al., 2022).



Image Source: Jenkins et al., 2022
This is supported by other studies reporting a direct radiative forcing increase of +1.59 W/m² over the US from 1996-2019 and +2.0 W/m² impact over Europe from 1980-2018 (Augustine and Hodges, 2021, Kejna et al., 2021) due to these countries reducing their sulphate aerosol emissions through policy initiatives.





Image Source: Augustine and Hodges and Kejna et al., 2021
Considering it reportedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to exert a total surface forcing impact of just 0.2 W/m², reducing our aerosol emissions has a much larger impact on Earth’s radiation budget than reducing our CO2 emissions.

So if we want to more efficiently (and with far less cost) reduce global warming, apparently what we need to do is increase our aerosol pollution rates.

The science is now settled. Right?

 

A Montana AGW advocate, Reilly Neill, gets taken to school by Judith Curry.

Glacier saga
Posted on November 10, 2022 by curryja | 86 comments
by Judith Curry

The loss of glaciers from Glacier National Park is one of the most visible manifestations of climate change in the U.S. Signs were posted all around the park, proclaiming that the glaciers would be gone by 2020. In 2017, the Park started taking these signs down. What happened, beyond the obvious fact that the glaciers hadn’t disappeared by 2020?

Continue reading →

 

Sooner or later, the truth wins.
BBC Admit Their Pakistan Floods Claim Was False
Charles Rotter
It was plainly evident that nothing like a third of the country had flooded. . . .

 

Another climate falsehood debunked.

No, E&E News, Climate Change Has Not Caused Reno’s Rapid Warming
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS NOVEMBER 14, 2022