Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

What do you mean, "your lifetime," and why is that interval relevant to the global climate? Are you even aware -- well, of course you aren't -- that there was a 30-year period of rapid warming that ended and reversed in the early 1940s, and global climate cooled rapidly until the early 1970s? Isn't what you call, "your lifetime" just your personal experience of what has happened in the 50 years since the end of that three-decade cooling trend that was not part of your lifetime, or at least the part you remember?

 

Nope. My professors of planetary physics were very clear that the so-called "greenhouse effect" was not responsible for Venus's high surface temperature, but simply the sheer thickness of its atmosphere. That is why Mars, which has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the earth, is so much colder. Your silly CO2 climate narrative can't explain that, but the facts of atmospheric physics -- like the Combined Gas Law -- do.

 

You haven't offered any actual arguments, facts, or logic. None. Observing that temperatures and CO2 have both increased and claiming the latter must therefore have caused the former is not an argument, it is a bald post hoc fallacy.

 

None of that usual bluff and guff changes the increase in global warming and atmospheric CO2 during my lifetime.

 

None of your usual bluff and guff and lack of scientific knowledge from your primary school "professors" 50 years ago changes the fact that the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere (ie 96.5%) caused the high surface temperatures on Venus from the "green-house effect", and was not caused by green fairies.

 

None of your usual bluff and guff changes the increase in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 and climate change in my lifetime.

 

Ice cores. Just like the global warmers use.

 

What do you mean, "your lifetime," and why is that interval relevant to the global climate? Are you even aware -- well, of course you aren't -- that there was a 30-year period of rapid warming that ended and reversed in the early 1940s, and global climate cooled rapidly until the early 1970s despite rapidly increasing CO2? Isn't what you call, "your lifetime" just your personal experience of what has happened in the 50 years since the end of that three-decade cooling trend that was not part of your lifetime, or at least the part you remember?

As you have no scientific training, you are no doubt unaware that the post hoc fallacy you constantly commit is one of the most elementary logical errors in every sort of nonscience, including the CO2 climate narrative.

 

Well, as far as the increase in CO2 ive addressed them several times in this thread, pointing out that its the result of burning fossil fuels AND several times pointed to the dramatic increase in CO2 and the absence of such an increase in temperature. And 5 or 6 times pointed to the rapid increase in temperature following the last ice age, compared to the miniscule increase seen recently. DIRECTLY addressed both while your still sitting there pretending I have avoided them.

 

Because you have no scientific education above high school level, and did not do well in that, you are unaware of the Combined Gas Law. My professors of planetary physics were very clear that the so-called "greenhouse effect" was not responsible for Venus's high surface temperature, but simply the sheer thickness of its atmosphere and the effect of the Combined Gas Law. In fact, Venus's altitude-temperature profile is virtually indistinguishable from what would be expected from the Combined Gas Law alone, with no greenhouse effect. That is also why Mars, which has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the earth, is so much colder. Your silly CO2 climate narrative can't explain that, but the facts of atmospheric physics -- like the Combined Gas Law -- of which you are comprehensively ignorant, do.

 

That's irrelevant to the recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and climate change in my lifetime.

 

None of your usual bluff and guff and lack of scientific knowledge from your primary school "professors" 50 years ago changes the fact that the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere (ie 96.5%) caused the high surface temperatures on Venus from the "green-house effect", and was not caused by green fairies.

 

So how do you personally take the temperatures of the ice cores, and do you use a thermometer or your finger?
And what relevance is that to the global temperatures YOU measured 450,000 years ago?
And what relevance is that to the recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and climate change in my lifetime?

 

No it's not. All you have is your blank refusal to know facts. It's pathetic and despicable.

 

But what is the relevance of the temperature after the last ice age or 450,000 years ago to the recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and climate change in my lifetime?

 

Just more guff and bluff as usual.
So what has the global temperatures 450,000 years ago got to do with the recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and climate change in my lifetime?

 

The Law of Causation -- like causes have like effects, and like effects are likely to have like causes -- is probably the most important foundation stone of scientific reasoning.

 

The Law of Causation -- like causes have like effects, and like effects are likely to have like causes -- is probably the most important foundational axiom of scientific reasoning -- a matter about which you self-evidently know absolutely nothing.

 

Just more bluff and guff as usual.

 

Just more bluff and guff as usual.
So what effect did human activity have on atmospheric CO2 450,000 years ago?

 

So why do you continue with your irrelevant contentless, harassing rejoinders to other members' posts?

 

Just as yesterdays rise in temperatures from 65 degrees in the morning to 80 degrees in the afternoon is relevant to todays similar rise in temperature. All a part of a normal, natural cycle that is expected to continue. Global warmers claim that we can stop the natural cycle of recurring ice ages by simply reducing man made CO2 is absurd.

 

What part of

did you not understand?

 

So what evidence do you have that our afternoon temperatures were 80 degrees C, and is that why our bureau of meteorology recently added an extra colour to their temperature charts for shade temperatures above 45 degrees since global temperatures increased because of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity. Which is why on some days we can cook an egg on our car roofs.

 

But what on Earth have the temperatures of ice cores got to do with the recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity and climate change in my lifetime?