[Darlalarsen]

8 billion humans 3 to 4 billion cars driven daily over a hundred thousand flights a day industry pumping it out.We also have overrun every habitat.I think we can say for sure we are responsible and blind to our imprint.We are going to hit peak population very soon  things will only get worse the more humans there are.Its amazing how many people have blinders on  8 billion humans  and growing some how have no effect on the environment.

Actually I would say that everything is under control, the earth could hold much higher capacity.

[alancalverd]

Actually I would say that everything is under control, the earth could hold much higher capacity.

Controlled by whom? How much higher? At what standard of living?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

think we can say for sure

I am not asking if you think or say with confidence, much climate change argument is indifaticably slanted toward man made causation,  but none of the reasoning used is proof of man-made creation. The opening post of the thread is about margins of error, historic similarities etc. I am wondering if there is absolute proof linking global warming to mankind.

[alancalverd]

There is absolute proof linking human population to global mean temperature, but not the other way around. As the ice retreated, so humans were able to occupy increasingly productive land. The world is now some 12 degrees hotter than its historic minimum.

There is also a proven one-way correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and population. The advent of "artificial" energy from the steam engine to nuclear power has allowed us to improve hygiene and crop yields to the extent that life expectancy in the developed world has increased by about 3 months per year since 1850, and the demand for farmed meat has added some 25% more CO2 to that generated by direct fossil fuel consumption.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

There is absolute proof linking human population to global mean temperature, but not the other way around. As the ice retreated, so humans were able to occupy increasingly productive land. The world is now some 12 degrees hotter than its historic minimum.

There is also a proven one-way correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and population. The advent of "artificial" energy from the steam engine to nuclear power has allowed us to improve hygiene and crop yields to the extent that life expectancy in the developed world has increased by about 3 months per year since 1850, and the demand for farmed meat has added some 25% more CO2 to that generated by direct fossil fuel consumption.

Co2 is within the margin of error of historic co2 range. The upward curve of temperature is fitting with the temperature trend of the historic cycles, again within the margin of error.

[alancalverd]

Co2 is within the margin of error of historic co2 range.

Over the last 10 years, possibly, but a 100% rise since the ice age cannot be ascribed to measurement error. What is clear from the historic record is that the CO2 graph follows the temperature graph with about a 500 year lag, so it can't be the principal driver of climate.

[Bored chemist]

What is clear from the historic record is that the CO2 graph follows the temperature graph with about a 500 year lag, so it can't be the principal driver of climate.

No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.

[Peter11]

Every other species if possible will overrun their habitat hitting a die off.Humans are no different I thought we were smarter but obviously not we seem just as blind as every other species in the same position.

[alancalverd]

No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.

Only if the laws of physics have changed. Now that would be interesting.

[wolfekeeper]

No, the physics haven't changed, the effect of CO2 on the Earths temperature is extremely large, small differences have large effects, and humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can.

[alancalverd]

Worth studying the physics a bit closer, particularly the actual absorption and emission spectrophotometry of the planet, and ask why the historic CO2 curve lags behind the temperature curve if CO2 is a significant driver of temperature. In my experience, causes always precede effects. Also worth asking why Mars is so cold.

[Bored chemist]

No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.

Only if the laws of physics have changed. Now that would be interesting.

The laws of physics say that more CO2 will produce more heating.
They always did.
They always will.


What change did you imagine was required?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

To put the cat amongst the pigeons, venus has an atmosphere 95% co2, A pressure of 95 atmospheres and is far closer to the sun. Yet it only achieves a temperature of around 500C degrees. Earth is 0.04% co2 increased from 0.03% co2, apparently responsible for a 2 degree rise in temperature. If venus is given a similar temperature expectation it should have a 'surface' temperature of 2 million degrees. That is without even integrating proximity to the sun and the high pressure.

[Bored chemist]

To put the cat amongst the pigeons, venus has an atmosphere 95% co2, A pressure of 95 atmospheres and is far closer to the sun. Yet it only achieves a temperature of around 500C degrees. Earth is 0.04% co2 increased from 0.03% co2, apparently responsible for a 2 degree rise in temperature. If venus is given a similar temperature expectation it should have a 'surface' temperature of 2 million degrees. That is without even integrating proximity to the sun and the high pressure.

Nobody who understand the science would expect the temperature rise to be strictly linearly dependent on concentration or pressure.

[alancalverd]

Would you care to reconcile your responses #131 and 133 into a formula that explains the historic temperature and CO2 curves for the last 500,000 years?

[Bored chemist]

Would you care to reconcile your responses #131 and 133 into a formula that explains the historic temperature and CO2 curves for the last 500,000 years?

That's like asking if I would like to reconcile the sales of the Beatles' records with the birth rate of dodos.

What question did you think you were asking?

Saying A is not proportional to B is not inconsistent with saying that A rises monotonically with B.

Did you really not grasp that?

[alancalverd]

All the historic evidence and recent Mauna Loa data says that pCO2 increases or decreases in response to temperature. Recent anthropogenic CO2 would therefore be as relevant to global temperature as the dodo to the Beatles.

However if you are asserting some random correlation that cannot be expressed mathematically, you may find yourself at odds with a very large consensus and more attuned to magic than science.

[wolfekeeper]

That makes sense, because, in your head, CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas, and doesn't cause production of water vapour, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Oh wait, that's just in your head.

No. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 is causing global warming.

[alancalverd]

CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but has very narrow absorption bands which, according  to real scientists (people who make measurements of fact, not models of wish fulfilment) are saturated in the relevant wavelength region at less than 300 ppm in the earth's atmosphere. Water is far more potent (according to measurements) and can explain the cyclic nature of the historic record.

One of the problems arising from the CO2-as-driver model is its historic range, varying fairly smoothly from 190 to 390 ppm over several 100,000 year cycles with no obvious reason - the cycles do not correspond with volcanic ash deposits.

[Bored chemist]

according  to real scientists (people who make measurements of fact, not models of wish fulfilment) are saturated in the relevant wavelength region at less than 300 ppm in the earth's atmosphere.

Since I am a real scientist who measured CO2 by spectroscopy, you might want to wind your neck in a bit on that.