Man Made CO2 based Climate Change?
The problem I have is fitting the evidence together. The Keeling curve if you look at it superficially matches the level of CO2 that human production and fossil fuel use does. So, that is proof in itself that it is true. But it’s almost more of a Keeling line than a Keeling curve, it only bending slightly and varying almost consistently. But, if you look closely at the data there are many anomalies, in the early 70’s, fossil fuel use showed a higher increase than CO2 and since about 2000, showing a lower increase than CO2. Plus, all the years where there was a large increase or decrease in fossil fuel use doesn’t show up, neither does the large inputs from forest fires, but showing constant unwavering linear increase, changing by similar amounts irrespective of fossil outputs or events during the yearly season.
Depending on which start and end points you choose and your assumptions, the comparisons vary tremendously.
One site even did calculations on how much humans were producing in CO2 by measuring CO2 levels, then claiming human CO2 levels were driving the level of CO2 and temperature. If a and b is counted and assumed as the level of c, then c will certainly agree with the levels of a and b, but none of it may be true. This 6ppm year variation goes back over 100 years, not a percentage of any totals but almost fixed amounts, which you would expect from a closed and non-variable based system. Certainly not a dynamic one with variables. Plus, there was the time during the 1940-1970’s where although the human CO2 increased, the temperatures didn’t, leading to scientists of the time believing a new ice age was imminent.
The Keeling curve is called a curve but is almost a straight line. Fossil fuel emissions is a bumpy real curve upwards and more exponential. So, a changing one like that controls the other in a linear fashion? This is based on the theory that CO2 can hang around for 20-200 years. What is this assumption based on, not a lot really to be true. Based on ‘it must hang around otherwise the figures and theory would look a bit silly.’ CO2 must be cumulative and invariable, yearly change suggesting that maybe 2% of it just ‘disappears and reappears,’ the growth and uptake of all plant life and earth processes an unchanging fixed value over more than 100 years. Doesn’t look a lot unchanging to me, we have a lot less trees, rainforest and more red tides and the theory goes being that bacteria, algae and plankton changed the atmosphere from around a 40000% higher level it is now to its current state.
In the distant past there have been similar anomalies, CO2 being very high, temperatures not, and CO2 being very low, temperatures high, with many people scrabbling around for vague connections and reasons, mainly playing around with directed theoretical model parameters with little real evidence to support this. Is this a case of trying to fit the theory to match the evidence or trying to match the evidence to fit the theory?
I still have my doubts that a gas of proportion of 1 in 2174 in the atmosphere has such a massive effect compared to the 2173 in 2174 in it. 1 in 2218 if you count water content. Imagine a cube with dimensions 13x13x13 or a sphere with diameter 16, 1 component is CO2. The current consensus is that water has no effect, being only a driven parameter equivalent to the temperature. That it varies from nearly 0-4%, (0-90 times CO2) and can do so within feet, is not consistent even across latitudes and there are patches on the same latitude, insolation and temperatures that range from desert to wet rainforests, cloud cover not being homogenous, I would suspect that a simple linear interpretation of it is not really valid. If it is true, could it also be true that CO2 is a driven parameter like water, rather than ‘the driver?’
Temperatures seem to be rising. Things seem to be happening more often. Nobody seems to be doing anything effective. If we do a lot more of the same, will it have the same lack of effect? Very likely. Resources are running out. Things are becoming more complicated, interconnected, interrelated and interdependent. Resilience and backups are dirty words financially. Nobody can contemplate it not working and there are no plans or strategy for this.