Yes I agree 100% snowdog, it is only obvious. The other factor is deforestation and the natural "evolution" of the land that has possibly caused a further increase in co2 due to there being less plant life.
I don't understand this.
Solar flux ? right, so you are measuring co2 in the sea and now that is what you base your correlation on ? this leads you to think that co2 has a direct effect on temperature ?
Solar flux is just the radiation reaching us from the sun. A lot of it is visible light, a good amount infra red, ultra violet etc. Here is a diagram of the solar energy budget
http://www.optocleaner.com/images/Solar-Radiation-Budget-650.jpg
Yes, this guy must have noticed that carbonates in the sea were a good indicator of atmospheric CO2. The carbon cycle is a schematic for how carbon might get from the air to the water, to plants, to rocks etc. We know CO2 has an effect on the temperature. The sun emits mostly visible light, which penetrates the atmosphere easily. This light reaches the surface of the Earth. A little is reflected, but most of it is absorbed. The Earth much cooler than the sun, so it emits radiation not in the visible (like the Sun) but in the infra red (heat). Now this infra red radiation goes up into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is not so transparent to infra red light, and most of it is absorbed rather than getting out. In this way, heat is kept in. This is the "greenhouse effect", and the reason that life exists here at all, as it would be much much colder otherwise. However too much CO2 traps too much heat, which is why Venus and Mars are so hot. There are other "greenhouse gasses" too.
This is the sort of gullible mentality that believes any science that it comes across, as long as it is rubber stamped.
It depends on the stamp. Generally a paper coming from people/an institution with a good reputation can be trusted. And stuff on websites/youtube cannot. I suppose you are more likely to trust news from a major newspaper than a flyer you are given on the street? If you don't trust anyone you won't get anywhere.
Of course there is a balance in the atmosphere but when we have over 70% nitrogen and co2 makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere and has a natural way of removing it self from the atmosphere, i just can not see the reason for the emphasis on co2 in this context.
Good point. Concentration of gasses is usually expressed in ppm, which stands for parts per million. So CO2 of 400 ppm means for every one million molecules in the atmosphere, on average 400 of them are carbon dioxide. The plots in post 101 show that we think the concentration of CO2 was in the thousands of ppm 500 million years ago, but has been 200-300 ppm for twice as long as humans have been around. This 300 in every million is tiny, which is why the fact that it is now nearly 400 since the industrial revolution is a big deal. It hasn't been this high for over 400,000 years. And that's in just 150 short years.
How exactly do we know the atmospheric make up of mars and venus again ? Is it through heat signature ? infared ?
Another good question. I guess they probably look at what are called spectra. If there is a lot of CO2, then certain frequencies of light will not be reaching us, as the CO2 molecules are absorbing them (so certain frequencies of infra red will be missing, among many others).
)
