I have been thoroughly entertained by a related post on this board, but that has become more political than scientific. I am curious as to why anthropomorphic global warming is so difficult to prove when to me it is so obvious. Here is my proof. I have never studied climatology but I am a chemist so I know what chemicals do.
- Carbon Dioxide absorbs significant radiation - Known from personal experience.
- The energy that is absorbed is converted to heat - Conservation of energy.
- Burning things releases carbon dioxide - Do I trust my teachers to much?
- Humans burn things like fossil fuels - I drive to work way too often.
- Humans are releasing extra carbon dioxide - 3,4
- This extra carbon dioxide produces heat when radiated by the sun - 1,2
- Therefore humans produce heat
- Heat that is produced by the actions of humans is anthropomorphic - Definition of anthropomorphic
I realize that this proof says nothing about the extent of heat that humans are responsible. From what I have read we have been releasing 20,000 million metric tons of CO2 every year since 1980. That’s 20,000 million metric tons that would not be released into the atmosphere if man did not burn fossil fuels.
Of course some of this carbon dioxide based on Le Chatelier’s Principle will be absorbed by the non-atmospheric earth (So if the atmosphere doesn’t take the hit the oceans do? That doesn’t sound good). Nevertheless when you add a reagent to the right side of the reaction arrow the reaction rate may increase but you still end up with a larger concentration of that reagent on the left side of the equation in a true equilibrium (notice I think like a chemist.).
Besides, solubility of most gasses in liquids is inversely proportional to temperature so if the temperature gets high enough won’t the oceans actually be putting more CO2 into the atmosphere?
What are the complexities of climatology that I am missing?