Pushing back

[CrusaderFrank]

Why did the glaciers start melting 15,000 years ago? Did cavemen drive SUV's?

What makes you think it ever stopped when we didn't even arrive on this continent in meaningful numbers until 200 years ago? Who was monitoring the glacier retreat back then?

 

[antagon]

rocks, reading through that aip link, i found some research conducted by keeling wherein he substantiates my perspective:

Also, in an article by Loder & Garrett (48) we found mention of a
plausible mechanism: that strong tides may cause vertical mixing of stratified
surface ocean water with cooler deeper water, sufficiently to cause appreciable
transient cooling at the sea surface.
Periodicities abound in the astronomical forcing of oceanic tides by the Sun
and the Moon, but to our surprise the only nearly decadal periodicities in tidal
forcing that we found were at 9.3 and 10.3 years, very close to the spectral
periods that we had found for temperature. Moreover, these two periodicities
reinforced each other near 1880 and 1970 but cancelled each other out near
1920, as did the spectral oscillations in temperature. Most surprising, a 6.0 year
tidal periodicity replaced the cancelled out decadal periodicity in the 1920s and
1930s; it was phased such that, by causing periodic cooling, it might explain the
6-year fluctuations in temperature seen in our decadal spline curve from about
1920 to 1940. We had perhaps found a plausible tidal mechanism that could
explain all of the main features of our band-pass temperature curve.

this was from 1998. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

i have argued in the past that the consensus on climate change had explored this angle prior to the popularized attribution to CO2, which does not seem to have the same direct connection to climate fluctuation or temp rises.

i could care less about why, although the implications of the ('94+ i think?) success of the SO4 commoditization likely inspired a similar international gore-led push for a similar take on CO2. i just think that the science on the matter should vindicate what is really behind global warming whether or not a profit could be made. such is not the case. this seems to be the road where the scientific community busted a u-turn and hyperfocused on the current obsession with CO2 for which i find more political substance than empirical.

you seem to have an affinity for the personalities presenting fact over the facts themselves. does keeling lend credibility to what i've argued?

did you read your own link?

 

[skookerasbil]

Rocks is getting his clock cleaned here!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Im no scientist, thats for sure and I give credit to all the people in here who have made a life out of studying science. Just isnt in my DNA.......I was born to work with people.
What is clear here in these pages and the point I have made in this forum a number of times is that.........as Antagon astutely points out........"the science" clearly is not settled, as some on here desperately try to convey.
What I never understand is........if these people consider themselves "scientists", why are they so obsessed with perpetuating a myth when it seems to me, the goal of any scientist is to continue the work of attempting to identify a definitive truth with 100% certainty.........otherwise, its it really "science". To me, the "science" of Al Gore and all of his religious followers is not science at all. Its a theory.........which isnt "science". And if this is certain, why the fcukk would we want to obliterate our economy based upon a theory?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

this is more of the reflex to refer to warming and 'basic physics' to make the tie to GHGs, particularly CO2. this does not support the prevailing causation attribution to CO2, however. why cant this application of basic physics support the more plausible conclusion that sea temps, rather than atmospheric temps, are responsible for warming? this is what basic physics and climate data actually indicates as far as i can see.

rather than believing individuals, i have chosen to believe or disbelieve their arguments, and i think that is where i see this issue of causation being contentious rather than settled. this is classic emperor's new clothes. the bottom line is, no matter who says what, he either has clothes on or not.

Crap, Antagon, have you bothered to really look at the physics of GHGs?

you've not always participated in discussions where i have put forward extensive information supporting the physics of the matter. i think i understand this stuff fairly well. i am questioning the understanding of those who have mischaracterized the extent of the effect of CO2 relative to H20 vapor, and challenge the concept of forcing from this source on the basis of the physical limitations of so small a net increase in CO2 to influence global evaporation to the extent claimed...

If so, how can you possibly say that the physics does not support the role of CO2 in the present warming that we are seeing.

well, my challenge on the forcing bit is informed by the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and the rise in temps or humidity, while sea surface temperatures and anomalies in virtually all of the bipolar ocean systems favoring the warm cycles does directly correlate.

in a similar vein to your question, have you considered this or are you seriously maintaining an argument because of who has made it, rather than what it says? what do you say to the facts of the matter with respect to the alternative causation which i offer? how do you defend the lack of direct causation in CO2 levels, while such exists for my argument?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now this is a site maintained by the American Institute of Physics, the parent organizaion of most of the scientific societies involved in physics, including the American Geophysical Union.

i've spent years studying chemistry, physics and earth sciences, to the extent that I hold a BSc in Biology and am an actively qualified chemical engineer. the link you've offered above is a long read about the history of your perspective and everything. i guess i could read all that some time, but is there any specific part of that which contradicts any claim i've made? i couldn't imagine that it reveals any breaking new understanding of the properties of CO2 or GHGs. if it does, could you point that out in lieu of me reading all that?

It is a link to what physicists understand about GHGs and the effects of GHGs. Now I am just a millwright, however, I did take the time to read most of the information in that link, as well as many other articles concerning the links between GHGs and periods of rapid warming in the geological past. And, no, the properties of GHGs that it points out are well known and have been for many decades. Properties that lead to the rapid warming that we see at present.

And I can easily believe from your posts, as opposed to some others on this board, that you are a scientist. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists that work in the field of climate study, whether actively observing the climate, or trying explain the results, state that CO2, as the primary GHG at present, is the cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing. Since you are a scientist, I don't have to link the lectures at the 2009 AGU conferance concerning what the scientists in that organization have to say concerning the link between the present warming and the man created GHGs.

The world's geological scientific societies are the people that have the most information concerning the effects of rapid introduction of GHGs into the atmosphere, and results those effects have for the biological community. The most extreme example of this would be the P-T extinction.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/jahren/pdfs/RetallackJahren2008.pdf

Now I see no differance in results whether the GHGs result from the efforts of a species or from the result of igneous intrusions. I am not proposing that the results will be as drastic as the P-T event, but we have numerous lessor examples of the rapid introductions of GHGs, and the resultant extinctions.

From our warming of the atmosphere with industrial and transportation emissions of CO2, we are presently seeing the increased emissions of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean and permafrost zones of North America and Siberia. That is a pretty strong indication that we are presently creating a situation with the potential for extreme results.

 

[antagon]

to clarify, i am a chemical engineer with a bachelors in bio. i make my living through my small construction firm, but we dig holes and remodel homes. i dont even build labs or stills (except for myself). while i've been afforded a reasonable background in the chemistry and functions of the atmosphere and the planet's systems of circulating energy and chemicals like CO2, i dont pretend to be any kind of expert like those which we might provide links to laying an argument.

that said, i remember the ideas on climate change which were prominent when i was in school. histories like that which you've linked to follow the trail with specific relation to the GH effect. the consensus you refer to has hyperfocused on the GH effect. the ideas that i remember from the late 90s revolved around the el nino 'crisis'. looking through the aip link, i was able to vindicate this fact, noting keeling's investigation into this specific matter.

the fact of the matter is that the atmosphere does retain heat energy. this cant be denied. the physics or chemistry of the earth indicates that the atmosphere is only a marginal player in retaining heat energy relative to the ocean. its not unreasonable to presume that a marginal change in the atmosphere's marginal heat capacity will have a nominal effect on the global balance of energy. for the avoidance of doubt, the climate change for the last 30 years does not correlate to any change in the atmosphere inasmuch time. on that basis the focus on GHGs in the atmosphere is not a focus on the impetus of climate change as we have observed such during the 'warming crisis' proceeding the 1970's 'cooling crisis'.

what makes it worse is that the investigation into the changes in the ocean's vastly dominant role in heat absorption, has been derailed by this GHG distraction, even though it is the mechanism which does correlate to the warming crisis features which drive this issue altogether. the physics as i see it indicates that the cyclical introduction of deeper, cooler seawater to the surface of the ocean used to regularly influence global climate. beginning in the late 70s these cycles began to wane. now i believe that every last one of them has virtually stagnated. because the temperature of water at the surface of the ocean is the most crucial component determining the climate of the planet - far more significant than changes in the atmosphere's constitution itself - this presents the most plausible causation for global warming. no additional sunlight or chemical change in the ocean is required to bring this about. changes in the chemistry or heat capacity of the atmosphere dont play in either. the moon's gravity and surface currents are instead implicated in these bipolar tides, among many other likely yet uninvestigated causes suffering from the shade cast by the GHG obsession.

look through the properties and interactions in the link which you've highlighted in red. compound the role of the sea with the fact that the el nino, pacific decadal osc., indian ocean dipole, arctic dipole anomaly... have all coincided in their warm cycles, and are persisting in this way for some unfortunate reason. figure in the fact that sea surface temps have risen several degrees since the 70s according to the noaa, in what i argue is obviously a result of the fact that deeper waters are not forced to the surface cyclically to the extent they have been before.

there's so many basic physics considerations which favor the oceans role in climate change to that of the atmosphere. they work together, but one is dramatically leveraged to be the impetus, and the other, the atmosphere, the effect. the proposals of 'forcing' are disingenuous for the extent which they contradict such basic understandings as the second law of thermodynamics and the relative heat capacity of water and atmosphere.

i could go on and on about the details supporting my perspective. the issue is that such a consensus as is existent over the cause of global warming should first exclude the observations which make it clear that changes in the operation of the earth's oceans are the cause. actually, i feel they should be embraced. instead, as is overwhelmingly clear, the elephant in the room is being drown out of history in favor of an economically expedient perspective that CO2 from taxable industrial sources is to blame.

 

[IanC]

Oh oh. Old Rocks is going to have to run for cover under 97% consensus and the (media adjuncts of the) Scientific Journals again.

The media is starting to print CAGW skeptic views and the effect on public opinion isn't going to be pretty when the common man finds out the 'settled science' is based on computer model bullcrap that ignores or oversimplifies many of the important real world factors of climate, like ocean currents and cloud systems.

Climate Prognoses “Not Worth The Paper They’re Printed On”

Vienna – Climate protectors and experts in Cancun will be forced to increasingly defend their earth-warming models against mounting criticism. ‘We just know way too little about the various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses”, says the managing director of Donnerwetter.de and climatologist Karsten Brandt.”.....It is simply nonsense. These prognoses are not worth the paper they’re printed on. The Gulf Stream has an impact on European weather that is 100 times larger than CO2.”.....In truth, the climate scientists have to concede that the development of temperature over the long term cannot be forecast with any seriousness....

 

[RadiomanATL]

Pushing back.

Is that anything like.....Frigthing back?

 

[Old Rocks]

Antagon, I fully understand your arguement. The heat the ocean contains is several magnitudes greater than the atmosphere contains. However, the ocean gets it's heat from the sun. It absorbs something like 90% of the energy that in the sunlight, a much greater rate than the continents. But it also re-emits more than a third of that as long wave infrared. That is where the atmosphere comes into play. When there is little CO2 in the atmosphere, most of the re-emited heat is lost, radiated into space. However, add more CO2, or any other GHG, and a higher percentage of the heat is intercepted, and re-radiated, adding heat to the oceans that would have been otherwise lost.

A crude anology would be the electrode in a hot water heater as the sun, and the insulation, or lack thereof, as the CO2. Of course it would be nice to have a clear record to compare reality to theory. Unfortunately, the temperature records in the past are only for the upper layers. We know those are warming, but we do not know if the lower layers are warming significantly.

AMS Journals Online - Is the Upper Ocean Warming? Comparisons of 50-Year Trends from Different Analyses*

There is great interest in World Ocean temperature trends, yet the historical global ocean database has very uneven coverage in space and time. Previous work on 50-yr upper ocean temperature trends from the NOAA ocean data archive is extended here. Trends at depths from 50 to 1000 m are examined, based on observations gridded over larger regions than in the earlier study. Despite the use of larger grid boxes, most of the ocean does not have significant 50-yr trends at the 90% confidence level (CL). In fact only 30% of the ocean at 50 m has 90% CL trends, and the percentage decreases significantly with increasing depth. As noted in the previous study, there is much spatial structure in 50-yr trends, with areas of strong warming and strong cooling. These trend results are compared with trends calculated from data interpolated to standard levels and from a highly horizontally interpolated version of the dataset that has been used in previous heat content trend studies. The regional trend results can differ substantially, even in the areas with statistically significant trends. Trends based on the more interpolated analyses show more warming. Together with major temporal and spatial sampling limitations, the previously described strong interdecadal and spatial variability of trends makes it very difficult to formally estimate uncertainty in World Ocean averages, but these results suggest that upper ocean heat content integrals and integral trends may be substantially more uncertain than has yet been acknowledged. Further exploration of uncertainties is needed.

 

[antagon]

1] the significance of uncertainty

there will always be uncertainty about temps in the atmosphere and in the oceans, but i argue that where these uncertainties extend into the deep ocean, there's not likely to be information which compromises the facts of the matter on the ocean surface where data is more reliable.

2] the importance of the surface temps we can more easily measure

the sea surface is where heat is absorbed from the sun, and while it could conduct through its mass to great depth, much of the heat loss is to the atmosphere through convection and enthalpy. this latter factor is all that i see as being very crucial to global warming.

3] the importance of decadal/multidecadal tides to the sea surface temps

since surface temps are warmer and such coincides with the tidal systems' lull in cool-cycle activity, i think there's reason to attribute the warming to these trends which are failing to cycle deeper, cooler water to the surface.

4] the significance of sea surface temps to global warming

granted a warmer surface, the enthalpy - the amount of energy needed to add to the water before evaporation - is lower (the reserve enthalpy is higher). for this reason, the same amount of sunlight can elicit higher amounts of evaporation and convection... greater communication of temperature between the ocean (where we are agreed that most of the earth's heat is stored) and the atmosphere.

5] sea-temp forcing, not CO2 forcing with regard to H2O vapor

this is the forcing argument i put forward. it is supported by the increase in H2O vapor right in line with these tidal anomalies like el nino (that is since the ~1980s):

from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.

a spike in atmospheric CO2 does not jive in this way... forcing from CO2 is just a theoretical guess rather than a substantiated claim. it cant be shown to produce cause-effect with so few PPM change as had been made in the 70s, moreover since industrialization. not supported.

6] H2O vapor dominates the greenhouse effect

lets examine the chemistry of the GHGs. if CO2 cant likely be implicated as a forcing agent for atmospheric H2O in the way that sea temps can be shown to, can it be said to be a significant contributor in itself as you have pointed out? are all GHGs equal?

i say they are not. H2O vapor is quantitatively the most abundant of all of these gasses and the one which directly coincides with warming trends. apart from that, the H2O advantage is also qualitative. it will simply absorb or scatter more heat than CO2. qualitative and quantitative.

add a few PPM of a scarcely significant GHG, and you dont get real warming. to make that case, one will have to ignore the other contributors which coincide with warming, and attribute the proceeds of those contributors to CO2. yet the glove does not fit.

 

[mdn2000]

I still have yet to see why they dont use CO2 as the medium in energy efficient windows.

It is clear for those who use common sense.

CO2 is cold, as I like to say you can buy CO2, its called dry ice.

 

[antagon]

I still have yet to see why they dont use CO2 as the medium in energy efficient windows.

It is clear for those who use common sense.

CO2 is cold, as I like to say you can buy CO2, its called dry ice.

plants 'breathe' CO2. might make a mess with moss and the like.

dry ice is cold. CO2, like what we breathe out, is not necessarily cold.

 

[skookerasbil]

1] the significance of uncertainty

there will always be uncertainty about temps in the atmosphere and in the oceans, but i argue that where these uncertainties extend into the deep ocean, there's not likely to be information which compromises the facts of the matter on the ocean surface where data is more reliable.

2] the importance of the surface temps we can more easily measure

the sea surface is where heat is absorbed from the sun, and while it could conduct through its mass to great depth, much of the heat loss is to the atmosphere through convection and enthalpy. this latter factor is all that i see as being very crucial to global warming.

3] the importance of decadal/multidecadal tides to the sea surface temps

since surface temps are warmer and such coincides with the tidal systems' lull in cool-cycle activity, i think there's reason to attribute the warming to these trends which are failing to cycle deeper, cooler water to the surface.

4] the significance of sea surface temps to global warming

granted a warmer surface, the enthalpy - the amount of energy needed to add to the water before evaporation - is lower (the reserve enthalpy is higher). for this reason, the same amount of sunlight can elicit higher amounts of evaporation and convection... greater communication of temperature between the ocean (where we are agreed that most of the earth's heat is stored) and the atmosphere.

5] sea-temp forcing, not CO2 forcing with regard to H2O vapor

this is the forcing argument i put forward. it is supported by the increase in H2O vapor right in line with these tidal anomalies like el nino (that is since the ~1980s):

from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.

a spike in atmospheric CO2 does not jive in this way... forcing from CO2 is just a theoretical guess rather than a substantiated claim. it cant be shown to produce cause-effect with so few PPM change as had been made in the 70s, moreover since industrialization. not supported.

6] H2O vapor dominates the greenhouse effect

lets examine the chemistry of the GHGs. if CO2 cant likely be implicated as a forcing agent for atmospheric H2O in the way that sea temps can be shown to, can it be said to be a significant contributor in itself as you have pointed out? are all GHGs equal?

i say they are not. H2O vapor is quantitatively the most abundant of all of these gasses and the one which directly coincides with warming trends. apart from that, the H2O advantage is also qualitative. it will simply absorb or scatter more heat than CO2. qualitative and quantitative.

add a few PPM of a scarcely significant GHG, and you dont get real warming. to make that case, one will have to ignore the other contributors which coincide with warming, and attribute the proceeds of those contributors to CO2. yet the glove does not fit.

lmao..........in other words Rocks, Chris et. al............the science is not close to being settled.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea temp forcing is CO2 forcing. The increase in CO2 captures more of the outgoing infrared. It re-radiates it, and more heat is added to the oceans surface. Which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes, the ENSO cycle is significant on a year to year basis, and there are other cycles that are significant on a decadal basis. However, if you look at the past centurys records, you will see those cycles overlain on an increasing temperature. And the driver for that temperature is an added 100 ppm of CO2 and 1 ppm of CH4.

100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between continental glaciers, and the present interglacial period. We have yet to experiance the full effects of an added 100 ppm because it takes at least 30 years, more likely 50 years for the feedbacks, ie, warming of the oceans and polar regions, to take place. However, we are seeing those effects from 30 to 50 years ago right now, so what the present 390 ppm of CO2 and 1.8 ppm of CH4 will give our children does not look promising.

 

[westwall]

I still have yet to see why they dont use CO2 as the medium in energy efficient windows.

It is clear for those who use common sense.

CO2 is cold, as I like to say you can buy CO2, its called dry ice.

Dry ice is one phase state of CO2. It requires extreme cold to create it. It does not exhist naturally on this planet in that phase.

 

[westwall]

Sea temp forcing is CO2 forcing. The increase in CO2 captures more of the outgoing infrared. It re-radiates it, and more heat is added to the oceans surface. Which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes, the ENSO cycle is significant on a year to year basis, and there are other cycles that are significant on a decadal basis. However, if you look at the past centurys records, you will see those cycles overlain on an increasing temperature. And the driver for that temperature is an added 100 ppm of CO2 and 1 ppm of CH4.

100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between continental glaciers, and the present interglacial period. We have yet to experiance the full effects of an added 100 ppm because it takes at least 30 years, more likely 50 years for the feedbacks, ie, warming of the oceans and polar regions, to take place. However, we are seeing those effects from 30 to 50 years ago right now, so what the present 390 ppm of CO2 and 1.8 ppm of CH4 will give our children does not look promising.

Pure unadulterated horse crap as usual from olfraud. The Vostock ice cores CLEARLY show a 800 year lag from the beginning of the warmth and the rise in CO2. Try again olfraud your facts don't equate with reality.

Please try to come up with some new material would you? This crap is just pathetic.

 

[mdn2000]

I still have yet to see why they dont use CO2 as the medium in energy efficient windows.

It is clear for those who use common sense.

CO2 is cold, as I like to say you can buy CO2, its called dry ice.

Dry ice is one phase state of CO2. It requires extreme cold to create it. It does not exhist naturally on this planet in that phase.

Maybe it does, I wonder if under the pressure of the earth's crust there might be a pocket of C02. The point I stress is that C02 as a gas that can absorb, store, and increase the earth's temperature is nonsense.

CO2, that is carbon and oxygen, why are we not concerned about carbon or oxygen? Heat is created when molecules get hit with another molecule and thus vibrate, this is all contingent on how much Cosmic radiation crashes into the CO2, scientists cannot prove that every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere even suffers a collision. Once a collision occurs the energy dissipates almost immediately, so quick its impossible to measure the time the CO2 takes to release the energy of the collision.

Of course much more cosmic radiation is absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere. I have stated "absorbed" purposely to distinguish between a "collision". H2O contains Hydrogen, Hydrogen is a natural neutron absorber.

I have no college degree, I have learned much about radiation, I like to know about what I get exposed to, in the course of my work I have been exposed to about 15 rem. Of course we know use the unit of Sievert which is an international unit.

Radiation I do know, anybody else here ever get "burnt-out", meaning I was exposed to the maximum amount radiation in a quarter that the NRC allows.

My primary function at work is regulated and governed by the NRC, the NRC audits my work.

So knowing a bit of how radiation reacts with my body gives me a basic knowledge of the properties of radiation hence I understand the physics of radiation "collisions", as well as the difference between being irradiated, contaminated, or exposed. This give me the knowledge to understand the effect of radiation on CO2 molecules.

How dry ice is made - material, manufacture, history, used, processing, parts, product, industry, machine, History, Raw Materials, The Manufacturing Process of dry ice, Quality Control

The liquid carbon dioxide is released, again via piping, from the adjacent tanks through the factory wall and into the dry ice press. When the liquid moves from a highly-pressurized environment to atmospheric pressure, it expands and evaporates at high speeds, causing the liquid to cool to its freezing point which is −109°F (−78.3°C). A nozzle puts the liquid into the top block of a dry ice press, which stands approximately 16 ft (4.9 m) tall. This press includes a large block at the top that can exert extreme pressure on the product that is brought into it. When the liquid carbon dioxide hits the block of the dry ice press, it immediately solidifies since it is now at room temperature. The carbon dioxide now resembles snow.

Read more: How dry ice is made - material, manufacture, history, used, processing, parts, product, industry, machine, History, Raw Materials, The Manufacturing Process of dry ice, Quality Control How dry ice is made - material, manufacture, history, used, processing, parts, product, industry, machine, History, Raw Materials, The Manufacturing Process of dry ice, Quality Control

 

[skookerasbil]

Sea temp forcing is CO2 forcing. The increase in CO2 captures more of the outgoing infrared. It re-radiates it, and more heat is added to the oceans surface. Which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes, the ENSO cycle is significant on a year to year basis, and there are other cycles that are significant on a decadal basis. However, if you look at the past centurys records, you will see those cycles overlain on an increasing temperature. And the driver for that temperature is an added 100 ppm of CO2 and 1 ppm of CH4.

100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between continental glaciers, and the present interglacial period. We have yet to experiance the full effects of an added 100 ppm because it takes at least 30 years, more likely 50 years for the feedbacks, ie, warming of the oceans and polar regions, to take place. However, we are seeing those effects from 30 to 50 years ago right now, so what the present 390 ppm of CO2 and 1.8 ppm of CH4 will give our children does not look promising.

THIS is the response to the two exceedingly astute posts by Antagon above???? Are you fcukking kidding me s0n? This post above is the same crap.........to the word.......you've been posting up for years. This is intellectual brilliance from a self-annointed scientist? A repost of a repost of a repost?
Know what I think Rocks? You're a social invalid weenie, which explains you living in the middle of nowhere in Scratchmyassville Oregon which isnt even on a fcukking sattelite map. Youve made a life of OCDing about something hysterical so as to make yourself somehow relevant. You spend 15 hours per day..........JUST IN THIS FORUM!!! And now, somebody like Antagon comes in here with knowledge that far surpasses yours in terms of scientific substance and publically humiliates you and you post up a fcukking REPOST???



Now Rocks...........do I hit the nail on the head or do I hit the nail on the head??

 

[antagon]

Sea temp forcing is CO2 forcing.

this is inaccurate. please see points 5 and 6 above. this is the sort of argument i was referring to when i concluded "one will have to ignore the other contributors which coincide with warming, and attribute the proceeds of those contributors to CO2."

The increase in CO2 captures more of the outgoing infrared. It re-radiates it, and more heat is added to the oceans surface. Which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

...and it is based on this implausible mechanism. rather than an ad lapidem dismissal, i'd explain what i mean:

7] the significance of the second law of thermodynamics in the sea/air interaction

just as ive been saying and as has been reinforced by the link you've highlighted in red earlier, the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere most of the time (of the day/night) and over most of the area where they interact. this imperils the mechanism you describe above because the second law of thermodynamics states that cooler shit wont transfer heat to warmer shit, but warmer shit can heat cooler shit. look it up here. that excludes a wide-spread conduction argument such as yours from being possible.

8] the nuance between vapor pressure and evaporation.

your presumption also relies on the idea that vapor pressure and even temperatures are in equilibrium within the system. of course this is not true. on earth, the temperature and humidity vary in contradiction to the general presumption which your argument is based. hence cold fogs and hot, dry air. otherwise, atmospheric temps contribute to the capacity of the atmosphere to carry humidity, not the evaporation which contributes the humidity itself (subject to the second law). the prevailing source of water vapor in the atmosphere is radiation from the sun which is filtered by the atmosphere, in fact. energy from the sun combines with energy already stored in a body of water (latent heat) until molecule by molecule the water achieves enthalpy of vapor and is freed from the bonds of the surrounding molecules, becoming gaseous. see point 4. it is not possible for generally cooler air to contribute to latent heat per point 7.

Yes, the ENSO cycle is significant on a year to year basis, and there are other cycles that are significant on a decadal basis. However, if you look at the past centurys records, you will see those cycles overlain on an increasing temperature. And the driver for that temperature is an added 100 ppm of CO2 and 1 ppm of CH4.

here i have italicized the unsupported conclusion.

9] CO2 is historically a feedback of climate change, not an impetus

drawing data from your aip link, these records indicate that CO2 rises and falls as a consequence or feedback of temperature, not as a cause, to wit:

from the vostock core

The Vostok core, an ice driller declared, "turned the tide in the greenhouse gas controversy."(49) At the least it nailed down what one expert called an "emerging consensus that CO2 is an important component in the system of climatic feedbacks."

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

10] no corellation exists between climate anomalies and CO2 levels

starring your aip link again...

smooth ascent; no anomalies. notwithstanding, and supporting my no correlation theory:

lets call this fig. 10b, ok?

11] basically a reaffirmation of point 5, but combined with point 10, excludes CO2 as being the an impetus of the global warming anomalies which this whole warming shit is concerned with.

from the noaa. please note the correlation to fig. 10b above.

CO2 forcing is not supported. sea temp forcing is supported. this is a major way they are different. CO2 levels are not significantly implicated in sea temps or sea-temp forcing by extension. sea temp forcing (of convection-warming) and sea temps' conduction warming are the primary causes which correlate to global warming trends worthy of alarm... not CO2. for your glove to fit "one will have to ignore the other contributors which coincide with warming, and attribute the proceeds of those contributors to CO2."