You AGW faithful ignore a whole lot of things.
Then I might have expected you to identify some of them but I find nothing along those lines in your post.
I don't give a rats ass about your irrelevant questions.
That's a shame. But, at least they seem to have convinced you to enter the debate at this point.
Ohhh, I bet lots of other things matter too.
I think you know I disagree. So do the vast majority of climate scientists. The conclusion of 97% of the PhDs who study this subject for a living is that that primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions. Please explain what cause you have to disagree with them.
Umm.. water vapor heating up the world is, in fact, the same greenhouse effect as CO2 heating up the world. It is the same greenhouse effect as methane's. It is the same greenhouse effect as produced by all the various greenhouse gases. They pass shortwave radiation and absorb long wave. Stuff comes in but it doesn't all get back out.
And CO2
IS most certainly produced by global warming. It gets released from the oceans and the soils as temperatures rise. But that does
NOT mean that it isn't a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere all on its own. In the past, when the Earth was coming out of glaciations, CO2 began to rise a few hundred years after warming began. Multiple studies now have quite clearly shown that warming from the released CO2 significantly accentuated the rather trivial warming produced by the minute angular and orbital changes the Milankovitch cycles produce. The Earth changes its tip or the shape of its orbit and gets a little more sunlight or a little more sunlight on the northern hemisphere (with its greater land area). That warming releases some CO2 from the ocean and the thawing soils. That CO2 traps solar energy and produces more warming. Pretty soon, you've got a real interglacial.
But just to state this simply: at no time in the prior history of the planet, has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the amounts we have released it, without thousands of years of prior warming from other causes. It is useless to study the past in this regard; it simply has nothing to compare to the current situation.
If you really know anything about science you would know that as the temperature if a gas increases, it can hold more molecules in suspension. The atmosphere has a higher concentration if CO2 because it is warmer. You are putting the cart before the horse.
I have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering. That doesn't make me any kind of scientist, but I have had quite a bit of physics with calculus, inorganic chemistry, materials science and separate classes in biological, chemical, meteorological and physical oceanography. So please believe me when I tell you that the statement you just made has some problems.
Gases are not said to hold molecules in suspension. "Suspension" does not mean the same thing as "solution". The oxygen molecules, or nitrogen molecules or CO2 molecules in the air are neither of these things but simply part of a "mixture". And there is nothing exerting any force or restraint on the amount of any gas in this mixture. I can as easily create a cloud of gas that is 100% CO2 as I can make one that contains none. And I can do so at any temperature you or I could possibly attain. Your statement about higher concentration because it is warmer sounds like you are thinking of relative humidity. As air becomes warmer, it is
capable of holding more water. Relative humidity is a measure of water vapor in air compared to the maximum possible water vapor held at that temperature. The relative humidity of a fixed quantity of air containing a fixed quantity of water vapor goes DOWN as its temperature goes up. But, again, that's water, not carbon dioxide.
You may also have been attempting to tell us that, unlike solids dissolved in liquids (think sugar in water) where solubility goes up with temperature, the solubility of gases in liquids (think CO2 in a bottle of coke) goes
down as temperature goes up. Ice cold coke retains its tang and doesn't bubble too much. Warm coke, on the other hand, has a strong inclination to foam and bubble and give up all its dissolved CO2. As the ocean warms, it will release carbon dioxide that it was formerly able to maintain in solution.
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. It is one of the many gases in the mix and could take on any concentration you can imagine. The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are primarily increased (from the year 1750 levels of 280 ppm) because we have burned billions and billions of tons of coal and petroleum. It is true, particularly over the last few decades, that some of these warming effects have released naturally sequestered CO2 (from the ocean and the tundra) into the air. But the vast bulk of it is ours. Isotopic tests can quite easily differentiate CO2 that came from the combustion of fossil fuel from CO2 that came from the transpiration of eukaryotes (animals breathing). When those test are performed, they show that almost every molecule of CO2 ABOVE 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels. Besides that, very good estimates may be made from simple book-keeping calculating the actual quantity of coal and petroleum we have burned. Those calculation produce the exact same results.
The rest if your questions are irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but they are as relevant as they can be. Those are the questions that determine whether or not AGW is real. Try answering them instead. Some time spent reading might also be a good idea. I love reading. It's good for us. My wife and I saw "Saving Mr Banks" this last weekend. I've seen the Mary Poppins movie many times, but I'd never read any of the Mary Poppins books. My wife and I are correcting that now.
