re: #804 Coracle

Same old recycled arguments. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned. It’s basic physics and chemistry. More of it traps more heat. That in the past, other cycles (Milankovitch etc) drive cycles of warming and cooling is not in question either, and the response of additional CO2 release and additional warming from CO2 release is not new or surprising.

Today we have CO2 and other GHGs being produced by humanity adding a warming influence

natural cycles. It’s really that simple in a nutshell, but if you want to get into the nitty gritty, the research is all there. Hundreds, thousands of papers of it.

Nobody is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s just that it’s the weakest of the Big Three (H2O vapor, SO2 and CO2). CO2 is at 387 ppm, and the human-contributed part of that is about 5%, or about 19 ppm. The geologic record shows that there have times times when the Earth was cooler than it is now and the CO2 levels were much higher. How does one account for that? More handwaving away of the data?

I also noticed that you also had no mechanism for what turned around the Vostok warming cycles, if they were indeed CO2-magnified. One can’t have it both ways: if the CO2 took over from the “unknown cause” that started the warming, why didn’t the global temps run away?

The scientific answer to that question is “because the CO2 wasn’t causing the warming.”

It’s ironic that you would post about “the same old recycled arguments,” when your best argument is “That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned.”

No, it hasn’t been questioned. What has been questioned is “Is it causing the observed warming to date?”

That question is still unanswered, but all geologic indicators are that the answer is “no.”