re: Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?

seems as if a key component is being left out like the different rotations and chemical makeup of the core of the earth and venus. Venus also doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect it against solar radiation.

Fun fact we know more about how the systems in space function than we do the human brain... so in a parallel universe that our brain can't comprehend venus is pleasant like caribbean beaches full of beautiful women. The maths says its true

quote:

---

Why does this matter? People exhale CO2. So the more people on the planet the more O2 is used and CO2 produced. To stop global warming we need population control.

I suggest we start by aborting all liberal babies so no more liberals are born. I see it as a win win. We stop global warming (liberals are happy) and we kill unborn babies (liberals are happy). The conservatives will be happy once all the liberals are gone.

---

quote:

---

Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?
quote:
Can I impose on you to do that math for this chem/bio major?



The ideal gas law can be rearranged as a function of density (d) to drop the volume term.

So PV = nRT solved for T and include density ---->


T = P/Rd/n or T = Pn/Rd

This is the mean temperature (T in kelvin), mean pressure (P in KPa), mean density (d in kg/m^3) and the universal gas constant (R at 8.314 J/mol-K).

Mean surface pressure of Venus is 92.1 atmospheres = 9332 KPa.

Mean surface density of Venus is 67 kg/m^3.

Mean moles is 43.45

T = 9332*43.45/8.314*67 = 727.91 K = 454.76 C

Wiki says the following:



LINK

So the ideal gas law is off by 7.25 degrees C through this exercise. But that can be attributed to an inaccurate density published in wiki. If the density were 66.43 kg/m^3 instead of the documented 67 kg/m^3 the ideal gas law would have nailed the surface temperature published in wiki.

ETA: Here is a quote from a scientific paper on the density of Venus atmosphere:

quote:
Atmospheric density at the surface is about 65 kg m-3


LINK

So there is a little dependency between Wiki and this paper.

---

quote:

---

If so, please provide a link to said proof.

---

The claim that CO2 increasing from 0.03% to 0.04% of atmospheric composition is causing 'man made global warming' is pretty laughable, especially when that idea is propagated by 'scientists' who would not have a job is they did not believe in man made global warming. As if CO2 is the only driver of temperatures.

If you really want to get a kick, google climate models and how they are made. Models are 'tuned' to fit historical data trends when the numbers are not matching up. Also, they have a big problem with third parties being able to replicate said models, since the people who made them are the only ones who know how they work (black box).

quote:

---

It’s not a circle if the input values were acquired independent of the IGL.

---

Waaaaayy over thinking this.

The "dangers" of "Climate Change" is a money grab and a scam.
There is nothing wrong with the environment.
Just sayin'.

No. And there is proof that it does not. I am a Chemical Engineer and have studied this subject for over 10 years. I can give more studies and facts that CO2 does not cause warming.

LINK /

quote:

---

It’s not a circle if the input values were acquired independent of the IGL.

---

No, it does make the circle.

The IGL model says density is PM/RT. M and R constant. You tell it a pressure and a density, it has to be the temperature you end up getting.

quote:

---

I got the numbers from wiki which is linked to scientific references

---

I know you did. The problem is the IGL says the density will be some value for a given T, P, and molar mass. If the pressure was higher at the same temp, the density would be too. If the temp was lower at the same pressure, the density would have to be lower too.

quote:

---

the irony of that would be an implicit agreement by the scientific authority that the IGL is a valid model for predicting planetary surface temperatures

---

No. It's an agreement that the density of a gas changes as temperature and pressure does. Which, you know, it does.

wrong!

it is affecting things like plants. more CO2 will effect plant and animal evolution. There was a time on earth when there was a crapload more CO2. The successful species adapted by having bigger stomata and bigger leaves to absorb more CO2. before long there will be gigantic leaved trees everywhere with a bunch of badass gigantic frogs eating gigantic mosquitos. it's only a matter of time.

quote:

---

clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing

---

quote:

---

Always happy to show you evidence that you're wrong

---

Whats holding you back?