I did not know that you are a skeptic I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate. I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions. I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.
the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening
The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....
First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production
Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?
The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.
Radiative physics says otherwise.
Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.
I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.
I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.
Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.
I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.
Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists