Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Every such site is merely a vehicle to advocate for the orthodoxy favored by that site's founder(s). In this case you are looking for a way to avoid the peer-reviewed research results which challenge your beliefs.
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
― Albert Einstein

 

I don't like any of them because AFAICT they are all biased liars, and NTZ is not the issue. Now post a "fact check" on a climate realist that you claim contains no lies and let's see if you are right.

 

You don't seem able to grasp the fact that the permafrost has melted before, numerous times, and no such CH4 warming resulted.

 

The meaning of "current" and "recent" seem to depend on what argument is being made.

Wrong. The stratospheric water vapor pulse created by the Tonga volcano two years ago, which may have been a major contributor to the record temperatures in 2023 (along with El Nino and dramatically increased solar activity), was not, repeat, NOT a consequence of global warming.

So NASA's claim is just objectively false as a matter of indisputable physical fact.

What else are they objectively wrong about?

Yes, but only to a microscopic extent that does not justify the enormous positive water vapor feedbacks that are characteristic of all climate models that predict large warming effects of CO2.

Microscopically.

But such feedback is so small as to be unnoticeable because there is already so much water vapor, CO2, and other GHGs in the air, and the effect of increased concentration is logarithmic.

But in fact, it can't, because there is already so much water vapor and CO2 in the air, and the effect of increased GHG concentration is logarithmic.

 

They assume that water vapour feedback (the main feedback) increases radiative forcing from 3.7 W/m2 to 16.5 W/m2 for an ECS of about 3C. However, many studies show a much smaller an ECS than assumed by the IPCC in AR4. (Instrumental ECS below which is the most direct).

 

Here is a graph showing instrumental ECS estimates going back even further:

 

Eventually, superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) will figure this out. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Lindzen, Choi and Specht will turn out to be closest to the right number.

 

Yeah, I'd say that Lindzen is closer to the real number. Satellites and radiosondes would also support the low CS from Lindzen.

 

Heck, it is not even hard to tell that their very baseline is highly skewed.

I always laugh, because as a baseline temperature they pick one from when accurate scientific instruments were first introduced, which also happens to fall within the Little Ice Age. The coldest period of time in "recent" history since the Younger Dryas.

When you set an artificial baseline for what the temperature "should be" right in the middle of a cold snap, of course anything that follows is going to be flawed.

 

Yep. It's like starting to read your thermometer in January, and in July you're screaming that by December it will be 160 in the shade -- and you've ruled out every possible cause for the increased heat except the cumulative amount of income tax withheld from people's wages.

 

When challenged, the alarmists run away.
PhD “Data/Climate Scientist” Can’t Provide Data on Extreme Weather Events
By Robert Bradley Jr. — May 1, 2024
The entire thread should be read to see a variety of take-downs of the alarmist narrative.

 

Propaganda can have short-term impact but it does not stand the test of time.
The 97% Consensus Claim Is In Fact 97% Bogus
By P Gosselin on 30. April 2024

Though the following video was posted 4 years ago, and has since amassed 1 million views, it clearly explains why John Cook’s paper is 97% bogus.


It’s good to remind people of this video every now and then.

 

So what is your scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that recent increases in global temperatures increased atmospheric CO2, and how?

And what caused the global temperatures to recently rise if you hypothesize it wasn't because of the green-house effect from increased atmospheric CO2 by human activity, given there has been no recent significant change in solar activity?

And either way, there is still a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity. And it's just your personal opinion whether the egg or the chicken came first.

 

I see. So, when solar activity went from the lowest sustained level in thousands of years to the highest between the end of the Little Ice Age and the start of the modern warming period, that was not a significant change??

When the sun unexpectedly became very active two years ago, breaking the downtrend in temperatures over the previous several years, that was not a significant change?

Your constant repetition of such baldly false claims identifies you as a person who cannot be taken seriously on this topic.

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...pQ-5SL0RIK6xQCUk3bwSQAAAA&vt=0&sim=11&iss=VSI

 

The skyrocketing temperature line since ~1950 on this graph is completely implausible, turns the declining temperatures from ~1950-70 into increasing temperatures, is heavily contaminated by non-CO2 heat sources such as urban heating, land-use changes, and contrails, and is not consistent with sources of uncontaminated data such as radiosondes and satellites.

Moreover, YOUR OWN GRAPH shows that solar activity has remained elevated far above the average for ~1880-1930. One of the stupidest "arguments" for the CO2 climate narrative and against the solar hypothesis is that if solar activity declines from a peak, temperature should show the same trend at the same time, ignoring the fact that as long as temperature is below the equilibrium level for the current level of solar activity, it will keep rising even if solar activity has declined. The claim that because solar activity has declined temperature should have declined is as idiotic as claiming that if the temperature in your house is 20C, and you turn the thermostat down from 25C to 23C, it should get colder, not warmer.

And as usual, your graph stops more than a decade ago, completely missing the downtrend in temperature 2016-22 and the dramatic increase in solar activity in the last two years.

 

That's some weapons-grade silliness right there.

 

And the global warming continues from the green-house effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 by human activity, and causing the loss of ice from glaciers and icecaps and melting of the permafrost.
In sad contrast, however, there has been no significant change in recent solar activity, even though some climate-change deniers claim that they personally measured lower solar activity thousands of years ago when they personally counted the number of sunspots.

 

I was just posting what Humlum et al (2013) found. I suppose a portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 might be explained by a decrease in the soulbility of CO2 in the oceans since CO2’s solubility is temperature-dependent.

I guess it depends on what solar activity or TSI study you look at. Some show that TSI has increased as of late and some show it hasn’t.

 

IOW the ocean CO2 and atmospheric CO2 has increased because of human activity, and is highly correlated with the increase in global temperatures.

Doesn't change the fact that there has been no statistically significant change in solar activity in my lifetime, in stark contrast with the very strong correlation between the increases in global temperatures and increases in CO2 from human activity.

But how did other deniers measure solar activity and the number of solar spots thousands of years ago, and did they personally count them or did they just examine photographs of the sun taken thousands of years ago?

 

Yes. Below is a graph you may (or may not) find interesting Mitty. I think it might just give you some insight into some of the reasons for us CAGW-skeptics being unable to accept the idea that our CO2-emissions are driving temperature.

 

None of that changes the very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and the increases in CO2 from human activity during my lifetime.

 

I think pretty much any claim like that is about as real as the election results from Venezuela or Russia.

Hell, 41% of people think dinosaurs and humans definitely lived at the same time, and as frightening as that is to comprehend, it is actually a far more realistic number than the ones badgered around about "Climate Change Consensus".

I think that is one of the most consistent things about bad propaganda. They tend to use such high numbers in their claims that anybody that has functioning brain cells should recognize immediately that it can be nothing but propaganda. I doubt that you could ever get a 97% of a group of anything to actually agree on anything.