[ThomPete]

The consensus is not science.

There is no accurate number not even a range which can be scientifically demonstrated.

The data is not showing what you think it is and it's not the data you are getting served. You are getting served interpretation of that data which is very very very different.

The reality is this:

Temperature increased 0.5 degree celcius from late 1800's to 1950 before there were any significant CO2 emissions. Then it took a break and continued with about the same up until today.

How much of those last 0.5-0.6 are caused by humans?

That would be science. What we have today is mostly political and ideological and only a fraction of it is actually scientific by any reasonable interpretation of that word.

[tempestn]

You might have a point if we were just taking temperature readings and guessing about the cause. However, the greenhouse gas effect is known, and can be easily demonstrated. Likewise, we can measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and see it rapidly rising[1]. We also know all the many human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's a pretty clear causal chain here.

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-re...

[ThomPete]

It can be demonstrated but that does not mean the entire system can be.

There is as an example negative feedback effects too in the system.

The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

If you want to convince me you provide me with actual scientific demonstration that aligns with the claim.

If we know how much humans are actually affecting due to CO2 then we can figure out what we can do about it. But as long as we don't know how much humans affect it I don't see any scientific foundation to go into the kind of panic we have seen the last 20 years really getting into the extremes these days.

It's not science it's politics.

[tempestn]

> The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

> So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

First of all, global average temperature increase actually has accelerated significantly since the 1950s: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

The increase has not been proportional to the increase in C02 in the atmosphere, but that is expected. Temperature is not directly proportional to atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Rather, heat loss is dependent on them (and on other factors like surface color, which is affected by ice melting, to name one. The main one that has changed thus far though is atmospheric C02). Just because the earth is trapping more heat though, doesn't mean that the temperature will make a large change instantaneously. Instead, the change in temperature over time will be proportional to the difference between energy in from the sun, and energy out in the form of emitted heat. By increasing greenhouse gasses, we reduce the latter, causing temperature to rise over time.

Since heat emission is proportional to temperature, eventually (if we stopped emitting CO2) we would reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. In order to get back to a lower temperature, we need to eventually actually remove C02 from the atmosphere.

This is precisely why climate change is currently such a crisis: even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emission now, which is obviously impossible, we would still see a significant further increase in temperature due to the imbalance in heat transfer that already exists due to past emissions. The more that is added, the greater that increase will be.

Everything I've said is backed up by clear science, so if you're really looking at this with an open mind, please tell me what part you disagree with or are unsure about, and I'll be happy to provide supporting evidence.

[ThomPete]

You are confusing CO2 emissions with temperature. The temperature hasn't increased significantly, CO2 has.

[tempestn]

No, I'm not. CO2 has increased more than temperature, but both have increased, as you can see from the graph on the link I included next to that statement.

[ThomPete]

But temperatures haven't increased significantly and especially not when you compare from late 1800 to mid 1900 thats almost the same increase around the 0.5 long before any significant co2 emissions from us.

Thats the point here.