By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

We either disagree about the definition of the word "irrelevant" or the phrase "nobody else".

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

If anyone reading this is curious what a troll looks like, find thia dude's "energy conservation" post in that thread. And i'll write your next comment for you to save you from having to consult your one-line script yet again: "y u ask me kill myslef" [Rujiel, 2014-12-14]

Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?

Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:

.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting.. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

... seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.

".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead .. he is either lying .. dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty .. Pathetic. .. you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. .. cowardice .. odious person .. you look like a fool .. utterly and disgustingly transparent .. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. .. You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. .. Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. .. spewing bullshit .. You're making yourself look like a fool. .. Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. .. a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. .. Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. .. if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) .. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. .. stream of BS.. idiot .. Your assumptions are pure shit. .. I'm done babysitting you.." [Jane Q. Public]

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. .. your adolescent, antisocial behavior .. keep making a fool of yourself. .. you're being such a dumbass .. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. .. you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. .. you were too goddamned stupid .." [Jane Q. Public]

".. what a despicable human being you are .. after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. .. get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being .. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. .. Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. .." [Jane Q. Public]

As you can tell by clicking those links, all those insulting comments were actually quotes from Jane Q. Public, directed at me. As you can tell, Jane Q. Public has been cussing at me for months, and I never responded in kind. That's why I found it bewildering that he accused me of being "rude and insulting". So I quoted some of Jane's bizarre insults to show that Jane's baseless accusation was textbook psychological projection.

It's still not clear why this caused you to hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).

Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.

Just quote whatever I said that made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times. Start at the beginning of the thread and make sure you're quoting things I actually wrote, rather than quotes from someone else. Then explain why these words I wrote (rather than quotes from someone else) made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.

... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]

Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]

Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?

Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong: "'The Greatest Generation' is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."

Members of the "Greatest Generation" were born from 1901 to 1924, but Tom Brokaw was born in 1940.

So Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong. Again. The "Greatest Generation" isn't a self-designation.

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbers right, and you won't even be lying; it just doesn't paint the whole picture accurately. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, that's not science the way it's practiced by all these large scientific societies. Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science. The AAAS and all those other societies agree that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. You probably won't believe me, but these scientific societies really are devoted to painting the whole picture accurately. Sadly, legions of anonymous internet ninjas accuse scientists of incompetence while regurgitating complete nonsense.

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago when "they" were warning us of the coming ice age. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

That climate science, to date, has been poor at prognostication is indisputably true. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Here's a list of 17 correct prognostications and their confirmations, including full citations.

... if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.

But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.

... Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.

That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.

Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).

But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.

I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.

Most solids are "black" to IR and are good absorbers and poor emitters/reflectors.

Perhaps you meant that most solids are "black" to IR and are good absorbers/emitters and poor reflectors.

Sadly, lgw still hasn't objected to Jane's Slayer misinformation even though I gave lgw a generous two days to show that he's a true skeptic. So let's review the basic physics in this thought experiment. A source is heated by constant electrical power inside a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.

Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

For a simple example, blackbody cold walls are at 0F (T_c = 255K) and the heated blackbody source is at 150F (T_h = 339K). Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

See? Applying conservation of energy isn't that complicated. In contrast, Jane's incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

... pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-05]

Once again, mainstream physics is based on conservation of energy. That means power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.

... I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't. No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

... My textbooks do agree with Latour about his main point, which is that direct warming of a surface via back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere is impossible, just as Spencer's warming of the only heat source by a cooler passive plate is impossible. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

Once again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.

... When I showed him that the mainstream physics, textbook solutions to the temperatures in Spencer's experiment disagreed with his (and Spencer's) conclusions, he hasn't ceased demanding that I solve it a different way of his own devising, which doesn't appear in any textbook on radiative heat transfer, anywhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

Once again, it's not an ill-conceived notion of my own devising. It's a general principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

Well, the fact is that mainstream textbooks which deal with radiative heat transfer (I have at least 3 of them, maybe 4 if I look around) show Spencer's conclusion about his little gedankeneksperiment to be quite wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

Once again, Jane just has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out = (epsilon * sigma)*T^4*area". I bet Jane $100 that his textbooks don't claim that electrical heating power = radiative power out. That's Jane's incorrect Slayer assumption. Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.

Jane also completely ignores Prof. Grant Petty, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, and Prof. Steve Carson who also tried to educate a Sky Dragon Slayer. Notice that his eqn 9 with negligibly similar areas is equivalent to my equation, not Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation.

Jane, don't you see how absurd it is for you to simultaneously insist that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" while completely ignoring the fact that mainstream physicists are telling you the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong? Doesn't that self-contradiction bother you even a little bit?

Yep, the guy's at least 800 milli-Timecubes! The interesting thing to me is that Spencer seems to be missing the point. Direct radiative heating of the Earth's surface by CO2 in the atmosphere is a Lie-to-children in the first place, and people who defend it based on religious faith really make themselves look silly. ... [lgw, 2014-12-07]

Like most physicists, I accept that energy is conserved. I'm defending this fundamental principle not because of "religious faith" but because of Noether's first theorem and the fact that our Universe exhibits time translation symmetry. If lgw seriously thinks defending one of the most fundamental principles in physics makes me look silly and at least 80% Timecube, then that says more about lgw than about me.

You simply aren't reading my posts. It's not "CO2 emissions aren't a concern"; it's "CO2 emissions aren't a concern if all you use is high school physics". It's all explained above.

Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)

It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?

At combustion-chamber temperatures, CO2 actually reflects infrared, vs absorbing it, which is a much more dramatic effect.

There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:

1) It can absorb IR, becoming warmer, and in turn emit IR as a blackbody.
2) It can reflect IR.

The energy transferred by effect 1 depends on the temp of the CO2. The energy transferred by effect 2 depends instead on the temp of what's being reflected. As these are "4th power of temp" effects, the difference is critical.

If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?

Saying "but what about Venus" gets the physics wrong (and also implies that the Earth could somehow one day become like Venus, when there's no mechanism for that).

No, I've actually emphasized that:

"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."

Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:

"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."

CO2 plays a role in absorbing a small percentage of the IR that is not reflected (which is itself a small percentage of the heat loss from the surface), and becoming warmer. The increase in blackbody radiation from the warmer CO2 is trivial. Thinking of this as "look, simple physics at work here" gets it wrong.

I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?

Most of the heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth is by convection - radiative heat loss is a small effect by comparison.

I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That establishes the slope. Adding greenhouse gases increases the effective radiating level, which increases the "y-intercept" of the temperature vs. altitude line. Both are necessary to determine the surface temperature (along with the Sun's brightness and the Earth's albedo, etc.)

If you think the process is simple and obvious, that just means you don't understand it. If you believe it without understanding it, you're acting on faith, not reason, regardless of your choice in high priests. Don't do that - either study the subject, or admit it's not important to you.

By "study the subject" do you mean reading crackpot websites, or getting physics training from an accredited university, leading to a physics PhD and a career studying Earth science? I ask because I've wasted years "talking" with anonymous internet ninjas who lack the physics training to even recognize that they lack physics training. Since you know my name and my physics training, what's yours? Knowing your physics training will help me calibrate my explanations to your educational background.

You still haven't cited any scientific literature to support your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern. When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."