[alancalverd]

If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.

Except that it doesn't. The seasonal variation is contrary to the rate of anthropogenic generation. This suggests that there is s a significant* non-human cause that produces more CO2 when the temperature rises. 

*"significant" to the extent that the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change. 

[alancalverd]

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.

The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, about 10000 times the molecular density on earth,  and it's so damn cold that the polar CO2 freezes!

[Deecart]

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO₂, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.

That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

And there are some other differences but this is not the point.
I said some think that because of the nonelinearity of the greenhouse effect (i suppose it is true) they even think that at some ppm value there could be some antigreenhouse effect occuring belong this value.
This doesent mean that if ppm value increase at a more higher value the greenhouse effect would not start again.
You could have, while ppm increase, some increase (in effect), then stable horizontal "plateau", then some increase again.
If we want to know the reality, we should do some real simulation with real CO2 and real energy (no computer simulation).
This kind of experimentation (this is how we call a real simulation) is in my opinion the only way to really understand whats going on (of course you have to add some water in the experiment and a gradient due to gravity).

[Kryptid]

I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It is a desert because of the lack of soil, and because the temperature (decreased by the wind) dont allow primitiv life living outside the sea (so no plants etc)

"Most experts agree that a desert is an area of land that receives no more than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of precipitation a year. The amount of evaporation in a desert often greatly exceeds the annual rainfall."

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/desert

[Deecart]

If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.

Except that it doesn't. The seasonal variation is contrary to the rate of anthropogenic generation. This suggests that there is s a significant* non-human cause that produces more CO2 when the temperature rises. 

*"significant" to the extent that the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.

Of course the varation is not steady if you dont do the mean.

But i agree that these oscilations are somewhat strange.
I would expect more randomness for datas we have acquired during 60 years.
It is like if the oscilation at year 1960 would be the same as the oscilation at year 2020 : This is strange.

You got the same oscilations at other laboratories but with lower oscilation range.
I have not all the datas but i could suppose the high of the oscilation is correlated with the high of the laboratory.
At sea level oscilation is low, and in the mountains (Mauna loa is at 3400m) oscilation is high.

Therefore i suggest that this fine tuned oscilation is merely correlated with some other fine tuned phenomenon.
If you analyse the oscilation you see that it is a sinusoid : 3 crossing with some horizontal line and 2 peaks (1 high and 1 low) => so we have 2 crossing around 0 (2 and not 3 because 3 count for 2) and 2 peaks.

The best phenomenon i could find is the orbital rotation of the earth around the Sun.
Due to the inclination of earth this can explain that the peaks are opposite.

So, not sure how to correlate this with "the reality" of the CO2 real ppm value.
Perhaps it is again some artefact due to the Keeling protocol i have told before.

But we can also do some hypothesis : Go the atmosphere higher into space when temperature increase due to direct sun exposition ? Surely.
Will this expansion of the air around the earth have some effect on the ppm value measured at some high ? Surely too

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

.

I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.

Again you are diverting from the point I made initially, lack of moisture means temperatures are higher. Rainfall cools things down. Water evaporating cools things down. Please read things more carefully rather than reading what you want it to say. I am unwilling to ceede my point to a statement about something else.

Edit.

The summer of 2018 was the UK's second-warmest - shared with 1995 - since 1884. The hottest was in 1976.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61825371.amp
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/rain-will-cool-the-temperature-down.1862414/

In the Southern US: The rain will cool things down or The rain will cool things off. I always say the second one.

Must be the zebras

[Bored chemist]

lack of moisture means temperatures are higher.

No, it doesn't.
It doesn't matter how often you draw attention to your mistake, it's still not really true.

[Bored chemist]

It is not a desert because of the lack of water.

It is a desert because it meets the definition of a desert- there's very little precipitation.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I even heard that when CO₂ ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO₂, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.

That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

Mars too has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 yet has a temperature of around 200K. Admittedly its atmospheres mass is only 0.5% of Earth's but its surface area is 1/4 that of Earth's.

[alancalverd]

I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.

It has the lowest precipitation of any continent (Australia included). The official definition of a desert is an area with less than 250 mm water precipitation per annum. Whether anything lives there is an entirely different matter: life abounds on many cold deserts and quite a few hot ones, but not on the surface of a snow desert.
 

[alancalverd]

The best phenomenon i could find is the orbital rotation of the earth around the Sun.
Due to the inclination of earth this can explain that the peaks are opposite.

You are getting there, but ignoring the simplest explanation. The mass of coldblooded animals on the planet exceeds that of warmblooded. The current estimate for insects alone is around 14,000,000,000 tonnes. When the temperature rises, the coldblooded beasts  start eating plants and converting them to carbon dioxide.

Now consider this effect over a long period - say a thousand years or so. As global temperatures rise, so does the mass of insects, and hence, with some lag, the dynamic equilibrium between plants converting atmospheric CO2 to sugars, and animals converting the plants back into CO2, changes  and the CO2 concentration increases. Which is what we observe in the geological record.

[Bored chemist]

Now imagine that the initial  rise isn't due to some oddity of the Earth's orbit but mankind adding massive amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
How do the cold blooded animals know that they should ignore it?

[alancalverd]

mankind adding massive amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

Like they did 15,000 years ago. Or 450,000.

You are quite right, of course. We have been here many times before, and our technology has caused massive changes in global temperature. If you dig a hole in London you will find Victorian remains.Keep digging and you will find Saxon, Roman, and even Neolithic artefacts at increasing depths. If you dig down further, to say 250,000 years ago, you will find trains, corresponding with a previous rapid upswing in temperature. The correlation is obvious.

[alancalverd]

Seriously, though,

How do the cold blooded animals know that they should ignore it?

A 2020 meta-analysis by van Klink and others, published in the journal Science, found that globally terrestrial insects appear to be declining in abundance at a rate of about 9% per decade, while the abundance of freshwater insects appears to be increasing by 11% per decade. The study analysed 166 long-term studies, involving 1676 different sites across the world. It found considerable variations in insect decline depending on locality – the authors considered this a hopeful sign, as it suggests local factors, including conservation efforts, can make a big difference. The article stated that the increase in freshwater insects may in part be due to efforts to clean up lakes and rivers, and may also relate to global warming and enhanced primary productivity driven by increased nutrient inputs.

It's pretty clear that, at least in the human-inhabited areas, insect populations are subject to more, and less predictable,  influences than mere temperature. An almond-growing acquaintance in California has vastly increased the amount of food available for pollinators by planting  all sorts of nut trees, but has to import farmed bees to do the work as the native and migrant populations have declined.

Thus we might expect a slight decrease in the amplitude of the Mauna Loa seasonal variation.   However all such surveys are limited to those areas important to "industrialised" humans. I very much doubt that the insect population of Canada, the west of Scotland, central Sweden, and all the swamp and tundra that accounts for the 75% of the land mass that is not settled and farmed, has seen a significant decline. 

[Bored chemist]

Like they did 15,000 years ago. Or 450,000.

No.
Try reading.
Here's what I said.

imagine that the initial  rise isn't due to some oddity of the Earth's orbit

We have been here many times before

You keep saying that.
It keeps not being true.

"The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "

From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

[alancalverd]

I think you might be among the first to claim that atmospheric temperature depends on p[CO₂], not ∂p[CO₂]/∂t, but I won't put words in your mouth.

[Bored chemist]

Climate change is  ∂T/∂t,

[alancalverd]

So if T responds linearly to p[CO2] why does the historic record show temperature decreasing whilst [CO2] is increasing?

[Bored chemist]

if T responds linearly to p[CO2]

It doesn't.

[alancalverd]

Then there's no reason to suspect that  dT/dt is caused by d[CO₂]/dt in the short term.