Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

No credible scientist claimed that the covid vaccine prevented infection from the covid virus. The covid vaccine reduced the symptoms from the virus by stimulating an antibody response like all other vaccines and eliminated the body infection.

So what is your scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 from human activity has no effect on global warming?
Or are you claiming that CO2 is not produced from human activity, and if so then show us your scientific evidence to support your hypothesis.
Or do you think the covid virus increased global warming and is melting the glaciers and the Greenland icecap and not the green fairies?

 

Nope. There has been no significant increase in solar activity in my lifetime, and the graph even shows a negative trend, and there is no correlation with the recent increase in global temperatures.

 

IOW atmospheric CO2 from human activity has increased global warming from the green-house effect.

That's just an unproven hypothesis. What is the actual proven scientific evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global cooling, and if so, why is the surface temperature of Venus above 400 degrees given that the Venus atmosphere is 96.5% CO2?

 

Your graph in #1577 is obsolete. The graph in #1589 is valid.

 

The onus rests entirely on the AGW-lobby to prove its case fully before asking the general public to accept it, because its proposition is the novel, revolutionary one. To date such proof has not been provided and the AGW-lobby is engaging in an underhand attempt to shortcut and evade the real scientific process while maintaining the false pretence of observing it to the letter. It is attempting to create a worldwide social, political and economic revolution by dishonestly foisting its novel, unproven and eminently disprovable beliefs onto the world populace willy nilly.

 

The only trouble with the explanation that CO2 causes the high temperature on Venus is that if you apply the IPCC’s logarithmic formula to Venus (with a suitable adjustment for the relative proximity of Venus to the Sun), you find that all that CO2 on Venus can only account for less than 50C of warming!

 

“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. In other words, you become a dead end to the virus." Fauci

 

That's your issue, not mine.
I accept the research findings of credible scientists that increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity has increased global warming from the green house effect.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, then do your own scientific research and prove your hypothesis with reproducible research data.

 

Probably much less than 50%

It turns out that most of Venus's "extra" surface heat is due to the adiabatic compression caused by the high pressure, the next most is caused by extra solar radiation, and greenhouse effect is a distant third.
How Hot is Venus?, by Roger Bourke White Jr., copyright May 2006 (whiteworld.com)

 

Then do your own scientific research to prove your hypothesis that the CO2 in the Venetian atmosphere doesn't cause the high surface temperature.

 

I don't, mainly because accepting that and forcing the elimination of CO2 spells very concrete and provable destruction of our entire economy.

It really isn't about what you think you've proved, it's about how disastrous the consequences will be if it turns out you're wrong.

 

Exactly. Which is why our symptoms were very mild when we caught covid from our unvaccinated grandson since we were fully vaccinated, whereas he was taken by ambulance for hospital treatment.

 

Reducing CO2 emissions by replacing petrol guzzlers with hybrid or electric cars, and coal fired power stations with renewable energy electric systems, and roof top solar systems and batteries etc will reduce atmospheric CO2 and subsequently global warming and from New York etc going under water when the ice caps melt.

And that's what all responsible countries are doing.

 

Without it's atmosphere of 96.5% CO2, Venus's surface temperature would be like Mercury's - hot during the daytime, and freezing cold at night.

 

<sigh> Sorry, I should have guessed that to understand a simple analogy would be beyond your reasoning powers. My bad.

<sigh> Similarly, adding one cotton blanket to a stack of 20 wool blankets and one cotton blanket will increase the sleeper's skin temperature. Just not perceptibly.

GET IT???

 

In same degree as peeing in the ocean increases its salinity.

. Venus? you think Earth has a similarity with VENUS? Maybe you hadn't noticed Venus is just a tad closer to the Sun than we are. IF our atmosphere WERE 96.5% CO2 we'd have other problems to worry about.

 

And you don't know that. That's a heck of a risk you're willing to take with others lives and livelihoods.

But then again, the "climate change" ninnies are terribly narcissistic to begin with.

 

No, in post #1086 in this thread:
1. The near-linear, skyrocketing temperature record shown for the last several decades is either uncorrected or deliberately under-corrected for non-CO2 effects on thermometer readings like urban heating, land use changes, contrails, and human heat-producing activities, especially at night, which is when almost all the warming has occurred;
2. The temperature record in those graphs has also been retroactively altered to conform to the CO2 climate narrative by removing the sharp decline in global surface temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s;
3. The use of total solar irradiance as the only permitted index of the sun's effect on climate is deliberately deceitful because it is known not to vary enough to have a significant effect -- no honest, competent scientist who investigates the relationship between solar activity and climate uses TSI as their index of solar activity; and
4. The graphs both end several years ago, before the temperature downtrend of 2016-2022 and the solar activity increase since early 2022.

I don't know how old you are, but arctic sea ice extent is about the same as it was 80 years ago. Global temperatures have certainly risen since the end of the three-decade cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s (when CO2 was rising rapidly), so maybe that's what is deceiving you.

What is your evidence that I made any such claim?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you know very well I made no such claim.

It has been high throughout your lifetime, except for Cycle 24, which was about average. Is it because you don't know any science, let alone climate science, that you are permanently unaware of the fact that the oceans' thermal inertia means they take centuries to reach temperature equilibrium?

Or are you still just grasping at imaginary straws?

 

Roughly.

And ~100x thicker...

 

So what is your scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that Earth's atmospheric CO2 has zero effect on the surface temperature. If so, then what is the cause of the recent global warming in my lifetime

.

So what has that got to do with your hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 has zero effect on surface temperatures, including Venus's?

 

That's your issue not mine. Fortunately responsible countries are addressing climate change and global warming by replacing the use of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, and more directly using the sun's energy instead of it's stored energy.

 

Oh, the CO2 in its atmosphere definitely causes the high temperature on the surface of Venus, as I already explained to you, so very clearly and patiently, multiple times: i.e., the fact that there is about 230,000 times as much CO2 in Venus's atmosphere as in the earth's atmosphere, and the surface pressure is thus about 90 times that on the earth. Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the earth, but the surface temperature is about 50C colder because it has so little else.

See? That's the kind of stuff you know when you know some science, especially atmospheric physics.

 

Resorting to the same absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacies over and over again when you have already been called out on them multiple times is not a good look for you.