“and it’s not good news if the climate change is NOT anthropogenic”
It’s not, so you’d better proceed on that premise. If water vapor - the dominant greenhouse gas - is included, humanity’s contribution to total greenhouse gasses is .02%. That is 2 parts in 10,000.
On the other hand, the Sun provides very close to 100% of the heat input for this rock. Slight solar variability can very easily swamp most other contributions, certainly including the miniscule amount contributed by CO2. That is occurring now, as the current solar minimum stretches to near-record lengths. Both last winter and this fall we’ve seen unusual amounts of snowfall. Guess what, snow and ice are major sources of NEGATIVE temperature influence, since so much extra energy is reflected into space. You’ll also note that the northern icecap continues to grow since the minimum of 2007, and the southern ice extent is well above the cherry-picked baseline.
Looking forward, the consensus among solar astronomers is that the coming cycle, 24, will be longer and weaker than cycle 23 - meaning even more of a cooling influence than we’re seeing now. That should mean something like 15 more years of cooling, at a minimum.
Also keep in mind that most likely a new Ice Age will come at some point. Any warming is a good thing.
You use a static analysis typical of liberals. Curious.
That is 2 parts in 10,000.
That's a cool red herring. Have you convinced anyone to inject a bit of ricin because it would be only 2 in 10,000 parts of what they ate that day?
Do people actually fall for such claims as being relevant?
I guess they do...science education is in a poor state in America these days, and I see folks use the specious "it's only a little bit" argument a lot here. :-(
Slight solar variability can very easily swamp most other contributions, certainly including the miniscule amount contributed by CO2.
And an airplane's control surface movements can swamp out lack of proper trim, but unless you account for the drift, you'll be miles off target at the end of a flight. Another red herring, I note.
Guess what, snow and ice are major sources of NEGATIVE temperature influence, since so much extra energy is reflected into space.
I presented research on this at a major university more than 20 years ago, so I'm not new to the subject and I'm quite aware of the potential feedbacks involved with albedo changes. You didn't mention things like the latitudinal shifting of albedo belts, albedo changes from enhanced ablation, etc.
You’ll also note that the northern icecap continues to grow since the minimum of 2007, and the southern ice extent is well above the cherry-picked baseline.
Considering ice sheets have a delayed response, and the effects and differences between wet and dry/warm and cold base ice sheets, ocean transport, isostasy, ice viscosity, snowfall increases from enhanced evapotranspiration, etc., sometimes the responses are not nearly what one would expect from a simple analysis.
Also keep in mind that most likely a new Ice Age will come at some point. Any warming is a good thing.
Sorry, but your simple analyses are worse than none. I love the cartoon with the caveman looking out of the cave at the snout of a glacier and yelling back in, "Honey, the ice age is here..." (See my upthread comment about those who couldn't get out of the way of the advancing ice sheets. :-)
And "warming is a good thing" shows you're not really looking at the climate change in a realistic manner. It's not a consistent warming across the board, or countering an insolation reduction. Some areas can actually cool faster than they otherwise would, even while the globe is warming. Etc.