Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Why don’t you post a Fact Check or Media Bias organization that you like, and input “No Tricks Zone”.

 

Just get tired of these Quackery and Low Factual Content” websites. Same challenge to you, as my last post.

 

NTZ quotes and links peer-reviewed research. Your aversion to the data is mere denial, and unwittingly reveals your fear that your claims are ill-founded. I'll keep posting the research and let avoidance of it tell its own tale.

 

Didn’t think you’d find one…

 

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”
― Marcus Aurelius

 

Alas the onus of proving that the scientific consensus of scientists and climatologists is wrong rests wholly on you, given that all respectable countries have acknowledged the science, and are consequently replacing the use of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. But since the effect of global warming from human activity has a large inertia the effects will continue for years, and is similar to comparing the effects of the "Dali" and a rowing boat on the Baltimore bridge when they run out of control (or fuel).

 

Just another post - cannot find one.

 

I agree that there seems to be a consensus on CAGW when it comes to governments, countries, and institutions. But many of these institutions are formally constituted as agencies, departments, or quasi-autonomous organs of political governments and therefore their scientific independence was compromised at their inceptions. I think there is no consensus among individual scientists when it comes to CAGW. If there were, John Cook and others would not have had to fabricate their consensus numbers. The onus is on you to convince skeptics of CAGW. We CAGW-sceptics are not the ones putting forward a proposal for the radical upheaval and restructuring of world society so as to fulfil a global political, economic, environmental and demographic agenda.

 

The onus, however, is on you if you want nothing to change, and to continue increasing atmospheric CO2 and global warming from the green-house effect.
Fortunately responsible countries are ignoring your unproved hypotheses.

 

Disappointedly we CAGW-skeptics have been ignored by Big Government. I think that only shows where the true power lies and that Big Government does not listen to the will of the people (most of which are CAGW-skeptics from the polls I have seen).

 

What in the world are you talking about? I do not regard media rating sites themselves as having any credibility, so I'm certainly not going to search through them. Either deal with the peer-reviewed research or don't -- your choice -- but don't pretend you're standing on any sort of principle.

 

Sigh!!!
Just like Galileo Gallilei spent the last decade of his life under house arrest instead of being drawn and quartered for blasphemy from his science.

 

I don’t see the comparison. CAGW-skeptics are the majority not the minority (like Galileo). Unfortunately the power in our world lies with the 1% -- the global elite who dictate reality to the public and pretend to serve the people. Most people today believe they live in a democracy. If we did then the man-made global warming bandwagon would never have got out of the parking-lot.

 

And the Flat Earthers rise again. Fortunately the power no longer lies with the skeptics and deniers, and the real scientists have even been buried in the churches.
https://thecompletepilgrim.com/seven-scientists-challenged-church/

And since the US presidency is not a democracy, perhaps the skeptics and deniers will get their chance if the 538 voters select Dettol Donnie in November, even if he's wearing a black and white suit and hat.

 

“Denier” (and similar epithets) is a term of abuse which you are applying inappropriately to honest-minded skeptics.

 

The global warming skeptics are just a lesser order of the global warming deniers.

 

What are we denying? We accept that CO2 causes warming, most also accept that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are due to humans burning hydrocarbons, and most think alternative energy-sources are a good idea. What we deny is that CO2 is currently in a sufficiently great concentration to have an alarming effect.

 

Hell, they call me a "denier", and my predictions go far beyond anything they even dare to posit as a potential outcome. Yet, somehow I am still a "denier", even though I am stating facts based on multiple ice ages and interglacials.

Such as trying to claim we are in the interglacial, and things should remain the temperature they are at now if not be cooling off. Which is patently wrong, considering that in every past interglacial sea levels were between 6 and 9 meters higher than it is at present. But somehow, we all must simply accept we are in some kind of "magical interglacial", and sea levels should not be as high as they are today.

 

The inertia delays from increasing atmospheric CO2 means that increases in global temperatures will continue to rise even if humans didn't add any more CO2, and particularly as the permafrost melts and releases all the stored CH4..

 

You don’t like the media rating sites, because they trash your QUACK sites and your Low-on-Facts sites.

 

In AR5 2013, the IPCC give an estimate of 5 PGs of released CH4 from permafrost by 2100 (source: IPCC AR5: Biogeochemical Cycles, page 530 to 531). PGs is equivalent to gigatonnes (Gts). See the extract below taken from the link and page above in the IPCC’s report. Now, 5 Gts of CH4 works out at about 1.9ppmv or 1900 parts per billion (ppb) and so 1 Gts of CH4 is equivalent to 0.38ppmv. So, how much effect would this extra 5 Gts of CH4 have?



The formula below is used to determine how much radiative forcing a given increase in CH4 would have:



Where ΔF stands for the ‘increment of radiative forcing’ in W/m²; M is the new CH4 concentration in ppb after the increment is added, and M₀ is the old CH4 concentration before the increment was added. Accepting that the current CH4 concentration is about 1900ppb (as of 2024) and that the IPCC say another 1900ppb will be added to the atmosphere by 2100 due to the melting permafrost (total of 3800ppb) then that would give us a radiative forcing from the released CH4 of 0.036(√3800−√1900) = 0.65 W/m² which would only be enough to raise the surface temperature by 0.12°C (under the Stefan-Boltzmann law: [288^4+0.65/σ]^0.25-288 = 0.12°C).

This is what the IPCC say. The direct warming from our CO2 is almost instant, but the inital warming from CO2 leads to assumed positive feedbacks in the climate-system such as increased water vapour that happen years later. They call them fast and slow feedbacks. But feedbacks can be negative as well as positive. How can we be sure that the feedbacks will not dampen the initial warming from CO2 instead of amplifying it?

Satellites have been monitoring the radiation emitted from Earth. The graph below from Lindzen et al (2009) shows that the Earth radiates more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict and that the feedback amplification does not exist. The vertical axis in the graph below is OLR and the horizontal axis is sea-surface temperature. The red line is from the ERBE satellites and the green line are the IPCC’s model predictions.

 

Dunno. But the global temperatures will increase and the sea level will keep rising from increased water temperatures and melted ice from glaciers and icecaps, until an equilibrium is reached.

 

I gave the answer. 0.12°C. You appear to have got your green knickers in a twist over this.

 

I’ll leave the math to the experts. I’m not a Clumatologist, but it’s doubtful you are either, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting on a forum. Here’s what the experts say. From NASA —->

“Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone.”

 

This seems to be your pretty standard response. Dismissing anything you do not like, simply stating that they have no authority to disagree with anything you believe in, then making a claim from somebody you believe in.

This is more formally known as the "Appeal to Authority fallacy". Rejecting anything you do not like outright, and simply saying all should ignore anything other than what your authority says.