I agree.

With “relative volume,” you seem to be misunderstanding me as saying that your “natural” CO2 emissions don’t count because they’re small. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that they don’t count because they are part of the short-term carbon cycle. If you had said “all humans’ naturally occurring carbon footprint,” instead of “my naturally occurring carbon footprint,” my answer would be the same.

However, I do not claim that the atmospheric CO2 level would be just the same as between the two hypothetical situations (1) humans only produce natural emissions, and (2) humans do not exist. There might be a difference, but it might be in either direction.

It is not relevant to AGW to talk about CO2-level differences between various natural situations, because, short of some truly huge natural disaster, such as all coal fields being on fire at the same time, they all “work”; otherwise they could not exist. For example, a situation in which all humans were “natural,” and their CO2 emissions exceeded CO2 uptake by plants and other natural carbon sinks, could not exist, because there would not be enough plants in the food chain.

You might object: “Yes, but the atmospheric CO2 level would rise during the approach to that situation, even though the situation could not be reached. So my natural carbon footprint does count.” My answer is, no, we don’t know that it would rise, and probably it would not, because the population-limiting effect of plants being in short supply does not suddenly kick in at the point of *global* starvation.

You might object: “Given the fact that we are not natural, our natural emissions add to the total atmospheric CO2 level.” No, that’s nonsense. The unnatural emissions are what add to it, if any emissions do.

You say you don’t like the word “sequester” in this context, since it implies a “natural providence” that is “storing carbon in this manner,” and this implies that we are “fouling up this equilibrium.” If, with “providence,” you mean God, then, no, it does not imply God, but if you do not mean God, you can only mean the natural order of things, and you might just as well say that you reject the idea of a “natural providence” that makes water flow downhill, or the earth stay in its orbit, or anything at all. The fact is that by burning fossil fuels we are changing an equilibrium that would exist if we were not burning them.

It is not true that by burning fossil fuels we are “smoothing the release of carbon over time” and thus preventing “inevitable staggered mass releases.” If it were true, the fossil fuels could never have accumulated in the earth. We have only been burning them for a tiny fraction of the time during which they accumulated.

You’re right, I made a mistake; 3C is what they say for that (regardless of whether it matches reality). But you still seem to be missing the point that what I was talking about with “total GHE” was GHE relative to 0 ppm CO2, not “total” including all GHG’s, just as you were talking about GHE relative to 280 ppm CO2, not including all GHG’s.

This is important, because unless what gives us the 3C is about as rigorous as what gives us the 1.15C, and unless we could expect it to be valid over a broad range of CO2 levels, probably all the way down to 0 ppm on the down side, it has no claim to being “the” increase that ought to accompany the doubling from 280 to 560 when water vapor is included. Well, we have no idea of whether it satisfies those conditions, and we have reason to believe that it does not.

Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that water vapor should be ignored, and 1.15C is what we should expect from the doubling. I merely say that the 3C is not nearly as well founded as the 1.15C. This is like saying that Chevrolet is not as good a car as Harley-Davidson is a motorcycle.

“no warm years were used.”

1998 was a warm year. Cherry picking 1998 as your endpoint is dishonest and misleading.

“No statistical analysis was needed or used.”

Then how did you determine that temps have shown “no increase” since 1998? Did you eyeball it?

No. CO2 by itself will raise temps by about 1C when doubled. With feedbacks (eg water vapor), the total increase will be more like 3C.

“I’m confused. Why do you think you can determine the total greenhouse effect from CO2 concentrations alone?”

I’m not talking about total GHE due to all GHGs, but only total GHE due to CO2 and water vapor. When you tell me that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm would raise the temperature by 1.15 C, you’re not talking about all GHG’s, either; you’re talking about CO2 and water vapor.

You are just cherry picking a warm year and then claiming that there is no increase. That’s pretty dishonest and shows an ignorance of statistics.