[alancalverd]

Here's a clip which shows the last 200,000 years
I have highlighted (roughly) the bit that shows the last 20,000.

Very rough indeed. You seem to have highlighted about 10 - 12,000 years, during which the temperature increased before the CO2 level as usual. The minimum at -20,000 years is shown as - 10K and the present temperature as +2.

Anyway, what do you think prompted the CO2 level to rise so sharply after the dust had settled?

[alancalverd]

here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"

And a more relevant fact from https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population is that the UK population grew by about 14% between 2000 and 2020 and is predicted to continue growing until the end of the century.

[alancalverd]

And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?

Not for as long as I have had any interest in the subject.

[Bored chemist]

here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"

And a more relevant fact from https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population is that the UK population grew by about 14% between 2000 and 2020 and is predicted to continue growing until the end of the century.

And again...
Nobody is disputing the rise in the UK population.
But it's due to immigration.
It is not due to the thing you were proposing to change.

[Bored chemist]

And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?

Not for as long as I have had any interest in the subject.

So, you sort of accept the point then.

. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.

But, no so much with time.

Those effects are the same as they were.

[Bored chemist]

Could you find a graph that was less clear?
Anyway, here's one with a more expanded scale- so you can actually read it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
And the change over the last 20,000 years is about 5K

[Bored chemist]

I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.

The point you seem to refuse to notice is that it isn't me with whom you are in dispute.
I already posted the graph, as drawn by a scientist.

[alancalverd]

Nobody is disputing the rise in the UK population.
But it's due to immigration.
It is not due to the thing you were proposing to change.

What do you propose to change to reduce the population to a sustainable level? Simply banning immigration won't reduce the number of people here. 

A bigger part of the problem is that life expectancy in the UK has increased by about 5 years in the last 10 years. Conventional "replacement" birth rate presumes a fixed life span. 

[alancalverd]

Anyway, here's one with a more expanded scale- so you can actually read it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
And the change over the last 20,000 years is about 5K

That's embarrassing. It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years. So no reason to panic after all.

That's why I prefer data to models, projections and consensus - it justifies my worry.

[Bored chemist]

the range experienced

By whom?

[Bored chemist]

It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.

Today's highest football score  is within the range of football scores this week.
So what?

[alancalverd]

It would indicate that there's nothing exceptional happening in the world of football today. Which is entirely to be expected - it's a very dull game involving huge amounts of money and a lot of political posturing.

[alancalverd]

the range experienced

By whom?

Everyone and everything, if your source is to be believed.

[Bored chemist]

It would indicate that there's nothing exceptional happening in the world of football today.

Imagine that something "interesting" happened, for example that a match was played and the score was 99:100.

Today's highest football score  is within the range of football scores this week.

would still be true.
And it would also be true if not a single goal was scored and every match  had a score of  nil nil.

So, it turns out that

Today's highest football score  is within the range of football scores this week.

is pretty much tautology.
The same is also true of your version.

It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.

And you obviously can't deduce anything new from a tautology so why did you say this

So no reason to panic after all.

Whether or not there's a reason to panic is independent of this

It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.

Why use the word "so" as if there's a connection?

[Bored chemist]

It's all a bit beside the point.
Yes the temperature changed- about a half as much as you claim- but there's no reason to suppose that a magical change in the water vapour  changed the temperature, is there?

[wolfekeeper]

My understanding is that water vapor is certainly a big climate issue. As CO2 increases, even small temperature increases due to that mean that more water vapor evaporates and it then acts as a huge greenhouse gas. This is already all factored into the climate models.

[Bored chemist]

As CO2 increases, even small temperature increases due to that mean that more water vapor evaporates

Which is why water vapour is an effect not a cause (and CO2 is).

[alancalverd]

So what caused the sudden increases in CO2 in the past? What limited them? Why did they always follow a long, slow decrease and a sudden increase in temperature? Why did the CO2 level always decrease thereafter with a phase lag  behind the temperature? When and why did CO2 cease being an effect and turn into a cause?

The first test of a hypothesis is that it should explain what has already happened. If it doesn't, it's probably not a good guide to what happens next.

[Bored chemist]

So what caused the sudden increases in CO2 in the past?

Why do you ask the same question over and over again, even after it has been answered more than once?

I already explained this to you, and provided an analogy (the neon oscillator) in a field you are familiar with,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659192;topicseen#msg659192

The first test of a hypothesis is that it should explain what has already happened.

Nope, that's the second test.
The first is "is the idea logically internally consistent?"
And the idea that a non-changing-thing is responsible for change does not pass that test.

When and why did CO2 cease being an effect and turn into a cause?

When it was suddenly produced in huge amounts by us rather than by, for example, the Milankovitch cycles warming the ocean.
Though, strictly, the "cause" is us.

[alancalverd]

So far, nobody has answered the questions in any sensible way. Asserting that CO2 is the driver does not explain, cannot explain, why the curve lags behind temperature. The waveform of the neon oscillator - indeed any relaxation oscillator - is the inverse of the observed behavior of the climate, unless you think that the sun sucks heat out of the earth. The Milankovich cycles do not produce sudden spikes of heat - they are essentially sinusoidal, not sawtooth.

It's impossible to convince a denier, but I'm pretty sure that someone who understands physics and the geological history of the planet, which involved ice ages and the like, would know that the water content of the atmosphere is not constant.