Why CO2 warming only happens near the Surface

[IanC]

We KNOW that water vapor retains heat.

We KNOW that CO2 does not.

Are you comparing apples to oranges'? Are you talking about the latent heat of phase change in the water cycle?

CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque to 15 micron IR, forcing that energy to take the slow route of diffusion through the atmosphere until the density drops enough that it can escape to space.

Water vapour makes the atmosphere opaque for some wavelengths, semi opaque for others, and forces that energy to take the slow route of diffusion up until the precipitating cloudtops where the water vapour condenses and returns to the surface, releasing the latent heat of phase change that was necessary to turn water into water vapour. The water vapour free atmosphere above the cloudtops allows escape for the wavelengths previously intercepted by WV.

 

[westwall]

We KNOW that water vapor retains heat.

We KNOW that CO2 does not.

Are you comparing apples to oranges'? Are you talking about the latent heat of phase change in the water cycle?

CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque to 15 micron IR, forcing that energy to take the slow route of diffusion through the atmosphere until the density drops enough that it can escape to space.

Water vapour makes the atmosphere opaque for some wavelengths, semi opaque for others, and forces that energy to take the slow route of diffusion up until the precipitating cloudtops where the water vapour condenses and returns to the surface, releasing the latent heat of phase change that was necessary to turn water into water vapour. The water vapour free atmosphere above the cloudtops allows escape for the wavelengths previously intercepted by WV.

Slows, but still leaves. Water vapor weighs quadrillions of tons. It retains heat. CO2 weighs billions of tons. It DOESN'T retain heat. Until you figure out the actual interaction of water vapor to the global temps, you CAN'T figure out the effect, if any, that CO2 has.

 

[IanC]

We KNOW that water vapor retains heat.

We KNOW that CO2 does not.

Are you comparing apples to oranges'? Are you talking about the latent heat of phase change in the water cycle?

CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque to 15 micron IR, forcing that energy to take the slow route of diffusion through the atmosphere until the density drops enough that it can escape to space.

Water vapour makes the atmosphere opaque for some wavelengths, semi opaque for others, and forces that energy to take the slow route of diffusion up until the precipitating cloudtops where the water vapour condenses and returns to the surface, releasing the latent heat of phase change that was necessary to turn water into water vapour. The water vapour free atmosphere above the cloudtops allows escape for the wavelengths previously intercepted by WV.

Slows, but still leaves. Water vapor weighs quadrillions of tons. It retains heat. CO2 weighs billions of tons. It DOESN'T retain heat. Until you figure out the actual interaction of water vapor to the global temps, you CAN'T figure out the effect, if any, that CO2 has.

Why do you guys keep saying CO2 has no effect because water has a big effect? That makes no sense.

Water has a huge effect, in both directions. It cools the surface by evaporation and releases the latent heat above the surface radiation bottleneck. Clouds, depending on their type and height, can cool by blocking sunlight or warm by enhancing the GHE. Water vapour is a potential GHG by absorbing many wavelengths. Changing the amount of energy in any of those paths can cause a big change. Hell, even changing the timing of cloud formation can cause an effect larger than CO2.

But it doesn't stop the effect of CO2! It's always there, adding its warming influence.

 

[westwall]

We KNOW that water vapor retains heat.

We KNOW that CO2 does not.

Are you comparing apples to oranges'? Are you talking about the latent heat of phase change in the water cycle?

CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque to 15 micron IR, forcing that energy to take the slow route of diffusion through the atmosphere until the density drops enough that it can escape to space.

Water vapour makes the atmosphere opaque for some wavelengths, semi opaque for others, and forces that energy to take the slow route of diffusion up until the precipitating cloudtops where the water vapour condenses and returns to the surface, releasing the latent heat of phase change that was necessary to turn water into water vapour. The water vapour free atmosphere above the cloudtops allows escape for the wavelengths previously intercepted by WV.

Slows, but still leaves. Water vapor weighs quadrillions of tons. It retains heat. CO2 weighs billions of tons. It DOESN'T retain heat. Until you figure out the actual interaction of water vapor to the global temps, you CAN'T figure out the effect, if any, that CO2 has.

Why do you guys keep saying CO2 has no effect because water has a big effect? That makes no sense.

Water has a huge effect, in both directions. It cools the surface by evaporation and releases the latent heat above the surface radiation bottleneck. Clouds, depending on their type and height, can cool by blocking sunlight or warm by enhancing the GHE. Water vapour is a potential GHG by absorbing many wavelengths. Changing the amount of energy in any of those paths can cause a big change. Hell, even changing the timing of cloud formation can cause an effect larger than CO2.

But it doesn't stop the effect of CO2! It's always there, adding its warming influence.

I have never said it doesn't. I have said it is miniscule if any. There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record. That is a simple fact. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[IanC]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

 

[westwall]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

Who says? The Vostock ice core data shows a 600 to 800 year lag between a warming event and the subsequent increase in CO2 levels. What happened 800 years ago?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

Who says? The Vostock ice core data shows a 600 to 800 year lag between a warming event and the subsequent increase in CO2 levels. What happened 800 years ago?

Maybe a good warm up out of the LIA ?

 

[SSDD]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

 

[IanC]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

 

[westwall]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

Why do you believe that? Mankind adds less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. This is known. The MWP was 800 years ago, thus the Vostock ice core data correlates with the current rise in CO2 levels. Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but it is a data point that has been completely ignored by the AGW supporters.

 

[IanC]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

Why do you believe that? Mankind adds less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. This is known. The MWP was 800 years ago, thus the Vostock ice core data correlates with the current rise in CO2 levels. Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but it is a data point that has been completely ignored by the AGW supporters.

CO2 has gone up about 40% in the last 160 years, from 280 to 400 ppm. About a quarter of one percent a year, admittedly skewed towards the more recent years.

There are quite a few reasons why CO2 rises in warmer times, solubility for one. I can also understand a lagged effect. If the MWP had warmer oceans and therefore elevated CO2 levels, the cold polar waters might also have elevated CO2 levels as they begin their journey under the sea in the conveyor belt circulation pattern that takes 600-1000 years to complete. A warm period leaves an echo of conditions that surface again in 600-1000 years. If other cycles coincide the warming is magnified.

 

[westwall]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

Why do you believe that? Mankind adds less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. This is known. The MWP was 800 years ago, thus the Vostock ice core data correlates with the current rise in CO2 levels. Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but it is a data point that has been completely ignored by the AGW supporters.

CO2 has gone up about 40% in the last 160 years, from 280 to 400 ppm. About a quarter of one percent a year, admittedly skewed towards the more recent years.

There are quite a few reasons why CO2 rises in warmer times, solubility for one. I can also understand a lagged effect. If the MWP had warmer oceans and therefore elevated CO2 levels, the cold polar waters might also have elevated CO2 levels as they begin their journey under the sea in the conveyor belt circulation pattern that takes 600-1000 years to complete. A warm period leaves an echo of conditions that surface again in 600-1000 years. If other cycles coincide the warming is magnified.

Yes, it has, however none of that can be absolutely attributed to mankind. As far as magnifying the warming, there may be some support for that contention, but it is small. The simple fact is we have no real idea how the globe warms and cools. We just don't.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

How do you know? We have found that the spatial resolution hides many swings we thought were unusual today and taught us that these are normal and natural... How do you know that the sudden rise in CO2 is not also hidden in the resolution? Some of the more recent work on ice cores say that our current rise is not unusual.

 

[SSDD]

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

what do you mean "that paper". I gave you a link to over 20 papers that question our role in the total atmospheric CO2

 

[IanC]

what do you mean "that paper". I gave you a link to over 20 papers that question our role in the total atmospheric CO2

You gave me a link to a specific paper. I read it. I put in the time and effort to pull the information out of it. Truthfully, I was somewhat disappointed, and couldn't figure out why you thought it was worth it.

Now you pretend you're a hero for putting up a link to the blog No Trick Zone. I already read that blog, anyone interested in climate change should read that blog. It has become useful in the last few years for aggregating papers into specific topics, mostly papers with a skeptical bent. It makes the 97% consensus an obvious lie. It gives people an opportunity to see how the same data can used by different groups to come different conclusions.

In my own small way, that is what I have been trying to do on this message board. The article in the OP is informative, but has its own slant. It concentrates on one area of the atmosphere and gives short shrift to others. That's fine as long as the reader understands that it is only part of the larger picture.

That is where you fool yourself. You choose certain aspects of a problem and ignore the rest. Science is not usually clean and tidy. Different processes are at odds with each other. I have no difficulty accepting CO2 as a warming influence while rejecting the exaggerated IPCC claims of calamity by feedbacks. I can compartmentalize the different aspects and judge them individually on their own merits. You are an all or nothing thinker. I am not. You say CO2 should be ignored because the effects of water are larger, I say they are two different things and need to be considered separately.

There is no measurable effect for an increase in CO2 throughout the paleo record.

Historically CO2 levels have been controlled by natural factors. The recent increase has been predominantly caused by mankind burning fossil fuels. There is no similar epoch to compare with.

OK...first, historically, CO2 levels have been considerably higher than they are today...they are so low now because the earth is still clawing its way out of an ice age...second, recent research is beginning to show that we have very little effect on the atmospheric CO2 levels...Research is beginning to show what I have been saying all along...that being that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the earth's natural CO2 making machinery from year to year. Here...have a look at the research if you like...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

There is much more material HERE, but I am not going to bring it here for you. If you are interested, follow the link. The bottom line is that we really have little influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

I'm not looking to overly criticize that paper. It's an interesting take on CO2 accumulation but I don't think you can read quite as much significance into the fit of detrended data that has already been averaged, etc.

The Earth has slipped into a series of ice ages punctuated by interglacials. The reason is not certain, perhaps the location of the land masses. Comparisons of temperature and CO2 are probably more meaningful in this era than the wildly different conditions present before the ice ages. Present day CO2 is definitely out of range for the series of glaciation/interglacials.

If you want to believe the present day CO2 levels are naturally induced, that is your perogative. The previous integlacial was warmer than this one and did not have the same CO2 maximum. Nor did the interglacial before that. Or the one before that.

I think it is likely that burning fossil fuels has significantly added to our levels. I like to go with common sense unless there is a compelling explanation to think otherwise.

How do you know? We have found that the spatial resolution hides many swings we thought were unusual today and taught us that these are normal and natural... How do you know that the sudden rise in CO2 is not also hidden in the resolution? Some of the more recent work on ice cores say that our current rise is not unusual.

Sure, link them up. I'd be interested in seeing them.