There are no climate change deniers — everyone admits the climate has changed, and will always changed.
What you have are natural climate change deniers, and anthropogenic climate change deniers :)
“You were right about the desert however on the matter of the glaciers there are melting at an alarmingly high rate and even threatening to disappear in a rather short span of time.”
Okay, so you can see the problem with the hypothesis you stated — you gave what you asserted was a falsification criteria, and then simply changed your mind about it when it was found to be false. This isn’t the way science happens.
What you do, is try to imagine every way you could be wrong, and then look *really* hard to prove yourself wrong. You ask others to help you look for the falsification criteria. And if you find them, you admit your error, and work on something new.
A pseudo-scientist, on the other hand, takes every refutation of their hypothesis, and comes up with a unique, and individual excuse for it.
I believe the industrial revolution was from 1760–1840 which means even before 1950 humanity was releasing CO2 by burning coal in large quantities.
Your belief here is wrong. Despite emitting more CO2 from 1950–2016 than all the years before combined, the rate of warming was steady from the 1800s to the present.
And there is nothing gradual about the rise temperature in fact it is accelerating
Again, your belief here is categorically wrong. From 1998 to 2016, there was no statistically significant warming. You can check here for the data.
The IPCC projected accelerating temperature increase, if we did business as usual. We did business as usual, and got no statistically significant warming.
We know that greenhouse gases give us the mild temperatures that we have without them the temperature of the earth would be 30 degrees Celsius colder.
We know the GHG effect is real. This includes the most important and abundant GHG, H2O.
So what if the amount of greenhouse gases doubles in the atmosphere will you seriously tell me that will have no consequences?
From the data, it looks like the more CO2 we emit, the more natural sinks absorb, so if we emit more CO2, we can expect that the natural processes will simply take it up. Observed CO2 rise then becomes a factor not of our emissions, but of some other dynamic balance of natural factors.
But to answer your question, if a single GHG measured in parts per million doubles in our atmosphere, yes, the consequences are minimal at worst. At best, they increase plant life, reduce violent weather patterns, and increase the size of the biomass on the planet.
When you reply you can either say an influx of green house gases will make the climate warmer which case you will have to admit that anthropogenic climate change is fact or you can say that an increase in greenhouse gases will have no influence on the climate, which is obviously false so you can decide between the truth and a lie.
That’s a false dichotomy. There’a s third option — CO2 is not calculated by independent variables. That is to say, it’s possible that adding more CO2 causes the natural system to compensate to absorb it, and that if you removed CO2, the natural system could compensate by emitting more itself.
Look up “buffer solution” on google, and you’ll get examples of this for solutions that do this for pH, neutralizing both acids (lower pH), and bases (higher pH).
But here’s the *real* problem with your formulation — your statement is obviously trivially true — we live in a closely coupled, stochastic, dynamic system, and the fact that you moved your pinky finger while typing your document could have changed the storm track for a hurricane this year by 200 miles. So every molecule of CO2 emitted from every butterfly will obviously have *some* effect on the climate.
The problem is, we have no reliable gauge of what the effect will be. It is a speculation fraught with incredible uncertainty.
So, if you admit that CO2 will make the climate warmer, do you believe in butterfly-induced climate change?