Only in a closed system. The Earth is surrounded by mostly empty space at 4K and is in approximate radiative thermal equilibrium with it and the sun. Trapping a bit more energy with CO2 just increases the surface temperature until a new radiative equilibrium is reached.
No I am not introducing unnecessary abstractions - I am pointing out your mistakes. The crucial thing about the Earths climate is that there is a non-linearity in the energy to temperature relationship that means in effect that there is room for positive feedback(s) without latch up.
The net increase in trapped insolation merely makes the surface warmer as a result of putting more mean free paths in the way of outgoing long wave thermal photons. Akin to throwing another blanket on your bed.
No it isn't. You are "simplifying" by making a gross and crass error. I cannot tell if this is deliberate wilful misdirection or a genuine misunderstanding of the physics and mathematics but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
The forests sinking CO2 is noise in the grand scheme of things.
If they were any good at it the global CO2 concentration would not be rising anything like as quickly as it is. Bush tried to get Keelings funding to record rising CO2 removed but in the end was forced to present him with the National Medal for Science in 2002.
Today his son also monitors the declining O2/N2 ratio which is a technically much more difficult measurement requiring 5 sig fig.
When Florida is trashed by rising sea levels or New York inundated then perhaps Americans will take global warming seriously but I am not holding my breath. I fully expect to see deniers for hire insisting that AGW is unproven when the sea is lapping at the White House steps.
Paleogeology and precision astronomical calculation of the insolation allows us a handle on the historical feedback values. It is imperfect but it is plenty good enough to show that the secular changes in insolation at 65N are a reasonable proxy for global temperature even though the changes are much smaller than the delta-T that they produce. IOW there are positive feedbacks that amplify changes in insolation. See for example the review by the AMS as San Diego in 2013 online at:
In particular note page 27 eccentricity being the strongest driver.
This is sort of obvious in that warmer water holds less dissolved gas so if the seas warm then they hold less O2 and less CO2. Loss of permanent ice also drives another positive feedback on the albedo.
No they can't. You just claim they might because you hate scientists and will clutch at any straw to deny the scientific evidence.
And back then the sun was a fair bit dimmer which balanced things out rather nicely. Life locked up a heck of a lot of CO2 as limestone and coal during the carboniferous era.
No it doesn't. You have been reading too many dittohead denier websites.
It is easier to do for an entire planet than it is for something sat on your bench. The vacuum of space is a very good insulator.
Nice of you to concede that we might be having an influence. I suppose that *is* genuine progress. I actually think a catastrophic climate failure is rather unlikely I tried to provoke one by adding a huge step increase in CO2 into one of the earlier climate models when allowed to play with it. I couldn't get the oceans to boil.
It depends whether it is dry as well. Californian droughts mean farmers are probably going to be one of the early casualties when the summer snow pack goes completely and the groundwater has been pumped dry.
The models are good enough for the predictions they are making. They may not be perfect and probably never will be but they are good enough to flag up that the business as usual approach will result in some very expensive real estate ending up under water as the oceans rise.
Trouble is that all this will happen on timescales much longer than politicians are able to deal with and so they attack climate scientists because they don't like the message. The old shoot the messenger trick.