Sure, it's just a guess that an observed and confirmed property of the CO2 molecule will continue being a property of that molecule.
what about this property... of being the most efficient coolant and a thermostat of temps according to NASA? are we not concerned about what it does in the earths atmosphere? What does it do overall. Not just what it does in experiments... Because in experiments it does both. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
this is the point... 1. "For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space." 2. is there a word other than bullshit for out of context irrelevant and specious all at once? cause you just did it. I also believe I showed you why you were wrong... co2 also absorbs and re-emits sunlight coming in as well?
Before man there was warming and cooling and co2 trailed temperature. Now co2 is rising. Therefore man is causing warming.
Personally I can imagine/envision a good emissions trading scheme based on CO2 measures could ultimately save our globe in the long run, not just environmentally and ecologically but also economically and politically! We will see! All humans has the naturally assumed responsibility to look after all the creatures that were created by the mighty creator of the multiverse we live! Isn't it true? A wonderful and purposeful assignment for every lovely human life! http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-plant-species-discovered-in-2015-in-pictures New plant species discovered in 2015 - in pictures http://www.theguardian.com/environm...of-worlds-plant-species-at-risk-of-extinction
If CO2 was going to cause "runaway" warming this would be a great concern. As it is CO2 doubling will cause only a very small temperature increase ceteris paribus. The mol fraction of CO2 is even much lower in real air than in dry. It is a very minor atmospheric and greenhouse gas, but it is essential for plant life and thus renewal of oxygen. Water vapor is the important greenhouse gas. See http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf Whether the Ferenc Miscolzczi paper is correct in all its assumptions and detail is not material here, what is is Miskolczi's elegant argument that the Earths temperature can not increase or decrease without a change in input from its photo and thermal energy sources, which are the sun and geothermal energy. Even then, the affect on temperature will be minimum. For an increase in CO2 alone to cause a large change in the Earths surface temperature a bedrock physical law would have to be violated. He also offers a convincing argument why changes in thermal and photo-energy input have relatively little effect. The Earths temperature overall is buffered. We are, overall, in a steady state condition. There is negative feedback to increases in energy input and positive feedback to decreases in energy input. It would take large disturbances to overcome this buffering system. This does not mean of course that temperatures can not change locally, but Globally they will change very little. If one area gets warmer another will cool because energy overall is conserved.
Really, a change to energy outflow can't change the temperature? If I throw on a blanket, I feel warmer because my metabolism and heat output rises?