No, embarrassment would only apply if Koonin’s efforts at calculation were genuine attempts to contribute to understanding of climate, rather than contribute to misunderstanding of it. Whatever’s driving him, he’s not going to blush when shown to be wrong about earth science no matter how often that happens. At this point, he might feel more ashamed if people hear him out and they exit the interaction with their understanding of reality still intact.

Martin Smith to Kobayashi Multitroll (KM):” What are the particulars of your proposed solution? How do you propose to reduce the fertility rates of undeveloped nations?”

Given the urgency of the AGW – the need to achieve the net zero in the next few decades
– without growth in renewables and electrification – CANNOT be achieved by the population control by means other than a GENOCIDE of several billions of people:

ALREADY assuming a massive drop in the fertility rates of undeveloped nations” UN projects the Earth population to be 9.8 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100 (https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100). Even if we optimistically assumed that carbon sequestration and direct air capture could reach 10% of the current emissions – then obtaining the net-zero via reduction of the Earth population as the main strategy – would require EXTERMINATION of 90% of population (8-10 billion of people).

Talk about Doomer’s cure being worse than the disease.

Re Tomas 1 Sep.. Tomas, why didn’t you answer my 3 questions – directly under them, so anybody can see if/how you are answering them? INSTEAD your posted a couple of pages of mishmash – partial quotes, partial answers, tangential points, unrelated points, and for some reason in the reverse order to the asked questions

To impose some order to your chaotic answers, I’ll repost my questions and try to locate the snippets of your answer that might be relevant to a given question:

“ 1. Would it produce an actionable proposal for AGW mitigation? The answer is: NO, since from the paper you brought up yourself (Lague et al. ) we already know that we CAN’T change that moisture ENOUGH to mitigate AGW in any meaningful way. See also the fate of the Sahara irrigation proposal by your fellow waterboy, Tomas. Do you have a BETTER plan?”

Tomas: “ Of course not, but I do not think that it must or should be primary goal of any research. ”
Sure, if you were submitting your paper to journal “Entropy”, or other Nabil’s publishers, But if since you apply for funding from the ” Horizon Europe”, whose first priority is “ to tackle climate change” – your proposal having “no implication for AGW mitigation, of course” might be a problem…

“ 2. Would it improve our climate models? Answer again: NO. The availability of water for evaporation is already either calculated or more likely parametrized for each surface grid element in the general circulation models (GSMs) – so in these models we already account for this effect the best way we can. ”

Tomas admits “ I do not think that the proposed research could reveal that “a significant part of global warming (should be) attributed NOT to CO2” and then he …. changes the subject, trying to snatch a victory from the jaws of the defeat: T: but to the limitation in the evaporation from land”

WHAT FOR? You had just admitted it has no influence on the objective of the Horzion Europe funding (“tackling climate change”) AND as I have already pointed out – these LOCAL effects ARE ALREADY ” either calculated or more likely parametrized for each surface grid element in the general circulation models (GSMs)” – so there is no improvement in climate models if the funding for climate modelling were to be diverted to your proposal quite the opposite – if a valid proposal underfunded because of the diversion of the money to your nothing-burger proposal.

3. “What new insight would we get – if from the results of a GCM that already calculates/parametrizes surface moisture – we found that out the total, say, 3C of warming in a given grid element, 1C. was due to natural surface moisture limitation, and 0.1C due to unnatural surface moisture limitation?”

Tomas To be honest, for me, this question does not seem to make much sense. I do not understand how certain model parameterization can make a distinction between “natural” and “unnatural” water availability.

The inability (or refusal?) to comprehend even such a SIMPLE question – is not a valid excuse. The question was in effect SO WHAT? what new insight will we gain if we “made a distinction between “natural” and “unnatural” water availability” , given that:

a) both the natural and unnatural components are ALREADY being calculated by the models,

b) from earlier studies (e.g. Lague et al.) we ALREADY know the MAXIMUM effects of evaporation limitation – and have show on RC that realistic effects are on;ly a tiny farction of the maximum range.

c) by combining “b)” with our knowledge of the water budgets – we ALREADY know that humans simply can’t increase evaporation from land ANYWHERE EVEN close to help with Horizon Europe goal of “tackling the climate change” (see the fate of your famous “Sahara irrigation proposal”, and JCM’s posts condemning “artificial fixation and overemphasis” of the role of CO2 by climate science.)

Given a), b) and c) – WHAT’S THE NEW INSIGHT from your proposal to …. label a portion of the output of a climate model “natural limitation of evaporation over land” and another “human limitation of evaporation over land”???

Or as I have already simplified for you”
“3. What new insight would we get –[ if ] we found that out the total, say, 3C of warming in a given model grid element, 1C. was due to “ natural surface moisture limitation, and 0.1C due to unnatural surface moisture limitation ?”

=============

P.S. Piotr 1. Sep ” “Tomas, will you be submitting also negative voices about your proposal?” he asked rhetorically…”
It was tongue in cheek (hence: “he asked rhetorically…”) – it wasn’t really about submission, but about whether you honestly consider the criticisms BEFORE the submission, or like Nabil Sweden, brush them aside, and double down on your original “idea”, and hope, like Nabil, for the incompetent and/or biased in favour of your “anything but GHGs” denialism reviewers.

KM: Martin Smith’s and Nigel Jones’ false framing assumes that identifying a problem is worthless unless you can also solve it. That’s absurd.

MS: I think you misapprehend, KM. We don’t say that identifying a problem is worthless until you can solve it. We say we are tired of you repeatedly identifying a problem we were already aware of (i.e. emissions are projected to rise despite the conversion effort being well underway), and instead focus your prodigious intellect on proposing a solution.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, KM. Jump in with both feet. Here are your claims so far:

1. Converting the worlds energy systems and vehicle fleets from fossil fuels to renewable energy and nuclear energy will fail.

2. Government is just as psychopathic as capitalism, so neither capitalism nor government can solve the problem in 1.

That doesn’t leave you much room to move, KM. In fact, I would say you haven’t just dug yourself into a very deep hole, you have pulled all the dirt back in on top of you.

KM: Where’s that grand climate science consensus at today?
I’ll tell you: it no longer exists.

BPL: Are you an authority on the subject?

KM: Is it time to abandon the fiction yet, or have we not had enough already? The consensus is not the ceiling of risk—it’s the floor of denial from all quarters.

MS: The fertility rates in all the developed nations is already below the replacement level. To reduce the fertility rate in the subsaharan nations, where it is highest, requires educating girls there and increasing economic development there. The world was trying to do those things there, until the Evil Clown stopped it.

Meanwhile, the conversion from fossil fuels to renewables continues apace. What are the particulars of your proposed solution? How do you propose to reduce the fertility rates of undeveloped nations?

Martin Smith says 3 Sep 2026 at 9:36 AM
We went through this with you on the conversion to renewable energy project. We don’t need you to lecture us on capitalism and government. What is YOUR proposal for fixing the government?

Weak as water. Lightweight. Fraudulent and dull. So dull in fact he doesn’t even realize how badly he lost the “what’s it worth” predicament. He is saying here he still doesn’t even understand what was being said. It’s what people do when they do not understand the discussion nor the facts; they have no argument to propose; have no solutions to anything themselves.

The demand for a “solution” is a fraudulent rhetorical trap — because it attempts to shift the burden. When it is the people who designed and defended this system are the ones who should be explaining why it failed — not the people who pointed out the failure.

Martin Smith’s and Nigel Jones’ false framing assumes that identifying a problem is worthless unless you can also solve it. That’s absurd.

When someone says “What’s your solution?” what they’re really saying is: “I have no response to your critique, but I can’t admit that, so I’ll make you jump through a hoop I know you can’t clear in one sentence.”

When Martin says “We don’t need you to lecture us on capitalism and government. What is YOUR proposal for fixing the government?” he is essentially saying: “If you are so smart, go solve world hunger, redesign global governance, and fix the UN—all in one sentence—or be quiet.”

It is a cheap debating / logical fallacy trap designed to be impossible to answer.

Because it is impossible to answer, it has nothing to say about—no relevance whatsoever to—my own commentary or reasoning or the evidence those are grounded in. Martin is pulling another one of his acts. Next step he’ll beg AI for an answer to protect the belief he’s always right.

Know that the perfect solution fallacy (or “nirvana fallacy”) is the exact rhetorical trap they are setting up. No one is required to propose a flawless new system to have the right to identify catastrophic flaws in the current one.

I found a search result where Tim Lenton uses the same metaphor to describe why the “you must have a perfect solution” argument is a trap. He writes that we are on a ship that “has seen the proverbial iceberg and need to be steering away from it as hard as possible” . The point is that you don’t need to know how to build a new ship, redesign the engine, and write a new navigation manual before you are allowed to say, “There’s an iceberg dead ahead and the current steering mechanism is locked hard to starboard. ”

Ref Oxford University Press 2025/05/22
Averting Disaster – must act to avoid potentially fatal climate tipping points. The Titanic disaster provides a fitting metaphor.
https://preview.academic.oup.com/book/60007/chapter-abstract/513485912

You don’t demand a full blueprint for steering the ship from the lookout who just shouted “Iceberg!” – before you’ll respond to the warning. The demand itself is the weak fraudulent deflection.

The same result came up in a recent analysis by Therese Lindahl and colleagues. They point out that while it is easy to dismiss institutions like the UNFCCC because they are failing, this is a mistake. Those institutions are still essential, and the goal is to identify the failures within them in order to push for “modifications to the funding model” and increased “transparency” .
Ref: https://beijer.kva.se/news-item/titanic-lessons-fpr-spaceship-earth/

In other words: the problem isn’t having an institution; the problem is that the current structure of that institution (a consensus-based, lowest-common-denominator model) is designed to fail.

The urgent question right now is not “What’s the perfect new system?” It’s: “Why did the existing system systematically underestimate every major climate metric — and why is it still doing it?”

That question has an answer. And it’s not “because we didn’t try hard enough.”

Unfortunately it is the dull and historically ignorant who do not have a clue. The greatest social changes in history — abolition, suffrage, civil rights, environmental protection — were driven by people who named the injustice first. The solutions came later, and they came from collective action, not from a single critic having a 10-point plan ready on demand.

References:

perfect solution fallacy (nirvana fallacy)
https://www.skepdic.com/perfectsolution.html

https://news.nus.edu.sg/nobel-laureate-steven-chu-warns-climate-crisis-is-a-titanic-battle-that-demands-urgent-change-in-course/#1

https://www.tricountyindependent.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2014/12/09/shayne-looper-are-you-infected/35777100007/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/03/07/letters-like-the-titanic-we-know-a-disaster-is-coming-but-we-are-ignoring-what-it-means-for-our-planet/#1

KM says 3 Sep 2026 at 3:21 AM
The IPCC Consensus was the filter, not the science.
The lowest-common-denominator consensus is not the ceiling of risk—it’s the floor of denial and minimization. And where’s that grand climate science consensus at today? I’ll tell you: it no longer exists.
–

There’s a flood of material on this now, even though it was ‘invisible’ for years.

That’s because the physical world has forced the issue. 2023-2025 record global temperatures. Rapid global warming acceleration rates. Deadly European heatwaves and wildfires. Record OHC SST temperatures, Super-sized El Nino the strongest in 1,000 years. Deadly catastrophic Himalayan glacier collapse.

You can’t keep pretending the consensus is real or working when 2024–2026 are screaming at you. The references (Kemp et al. 2026, the Santa Fe Institute paper, the Cambridge volume) are all from the last 12–18 months. That’s not coincidence. That’s the dam breaking.

The fact that the New Scientist and The Ecologist and Canadian Cor are carrying this—while Nature and Science still run cautious editorials that minimize the scientific findings—tells you everything. The mainstream scientific journals are institutionally captured (Elliot PSH 2026). They can’t criticize the IPCC too openly because their own editors and reviewers are IPCC authors. So the critique and/or the individuals (Hansen et al) gets exiled to the margins.

Anyone who posts material like this, if their comment on multiple forums or climate scientists’ substacks, is not deleted will be met with: “You’re cherry-picking.” – “You’re not a climate scientist.” – “The IPCC is the gold standard.” – “You’re just amplifying denialist talking points.” – “The science consensus is solid, you just don’t understand it.”

None of which is true or engages with the substance contained in the references. Because they can’t! Not when the references are all from IPCC authors, Cambridge University Press, and Santa Fe Institute. They’d have to admit that their own side is saying this—and that’s politically impossible for them.

It’s situation normal then. That’s the grim humor of someone who’s been watching this for 25+ years and has seen every iteration of the same dance. And—it’s not my problem. I have constantly done my part as a sane rational well informed global citizen. Repeatedly I have laid out the truth, sourced it, and framed it in a way that no one can honestly dismiss.

References:

Three Things, All at Once, All the Time
James Hansen Jan 14, 2026
Our research approach involved giving equal attention to paleoclimate data, global climate modeling, and modern observations of ongoing climate change.
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/three-things-all-at-once-all-the

Global Temperature in 2025, 2026, 2027
James Hansen Dec 19, 2025
Later in 2026, we expect the 12-month running-mean temperature to begin to rise, as dynamical models show development of an El Nino. We project a global temperature record of +1.7°C in 2027, which will provide further confirmation of the recent global warming acceleration.
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/global-temperature-in-2025-2026-2027

‘Supersizing before our eyes’: UN warns of record El Niño approaching
– 3 Sep 2026 – better late than never? Event is likely to be largest in at least 1,000 years and will pile extra heat into a world already in a climate crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/03/el-nino-supersizing-before-our-eyes-united-nations

Published: 16 April 2026
A major 2026 scientific study in Nature identified 219 “hanging glaciers” in the Alaknanda Basin (Central Himalaya)—glaciers perched on steep slopes that can detach catastrophically without warning
Basin-scale inventory and exposure assessment of hanging glaciers, Central Himalaya
Nandu Krishnan, Ashim Sattar, Anil V. Kulkarni & Harendra Singh Negi
npj Natural Hazards volume 3, Article number: 44 (2026)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44304-026-00205-8

Rain Where It Should Snow: Tracing The Roots Of Nepal And Uttarakhand Disasters – The floods that struck Raini in Chamoli district in February 2021 bear a striking resemblance to the disaster in Nepal
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rain-where-it-should-snow-tracing-roots-of-nepal-and-uttarakhand-disasters-11969749

Expert analysis notes permafrost thawing is a key factor—the frozen ground acts as “glue” holding steep Himalayan slopes together
https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/opinion-every-glacier-is-different-our-failure-to-prepare-is-always-the-same-11988954/amp/1

Tsunami of dirt: what caused Nepal’s deadly glacial flood?
The Conversation By Levan Tielidze
https://www.abc.net.au/asia/tsunami-of-dirt-what-caused-nepal-s-deadly-glacial-flood-/107085968#1

How does a collapsing glacier turn into a lethal wall of mud and water? An expert explains what happened in Nepal – Stuart Dunning; Professor of Applied Geomorphology, Newcastle University
https://theconversation.com/how-does-a-collapsing-glacier-turn-into-a-lethal-wall-of-mud-and-water-an-expert-explains-what-happened-in-nepal-290677#1

In the wake of deadly floods, one expert’s case for nature – We can’t prevent every flood, landslide or glacial event — but we can reduce our vulnerability to them, says a Conservation International expert.
https://www.conservation.org/news/news-spotlight-in-the-wake-of-deadly-floods-one-experts-case-for-nature

Correction addendum:
The lowest-common-denominator consensus1 is not the ceiling of risk—it’s the floor of denial and minimization from all quarters—it is not just the governments and corporate lobbyists throwing their weight around either.

The “lowest-common-denominator” dilution happens before the politicians ever get their hands on it—inside the scientific community itself. The quest for consensus encourages premature agreement among experts where none exists,2 with the loudest voices often taken to be more representative than they actually are, while silent actors fall in line with what they perceive to be the trend.

This allows enabling certain actors to disproportionately direct the consensus through dominance hierarchy pressures and what Greg Elliott’s Psychopathic Selection Hypothesis3 describes as the institutional “entrapment” dynamics that reward conformity and punish dissent. This “scientific reticence” leaves the more extreme—and often more plausible—possibilities on the cutting room floor.4

References: Hidden in plain view and buried in the ‘noise.’

1.1 “because it is a consensus document, its conclusions are the lowest common denominator” 2013 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ipcc-report-released-no-s_b_4037784

1.2 “lowest-common-denominator texts that are cautious in tone, downplay urgency” 2026 https://www.stockholmresilience.org/5.7776dc9119e48bc873634d6.html

1.3 “consensus rule… has always been the Achilles heel … often led to outcomes that can only be described as the lowest common denominator…” and ” how the UN’s requirement for unanimity holds back environmental policy,” 2025 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2493475-how-to-tackle-environmental-issues-when-the-world-cant-agree/

1.4 “Consensus, it was said, would be the aim; but then the veto was introduced. This is the very opposite of consensus! ” 2025 https://theecologist.org/2025/jan/16/how-get-consensus-cop30

1.5 “The IPCC process suffers from all the dangers of consensus–building in a complex arena, leading to “least drama” and lowest-common-denominator out-comes which overlook critical issues.” 2025 https://canadiancor.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Is-scientific-reticence-hindering-climate-understanding-.pdf

2 A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2022
https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/5f30137d-9c76-4cb9-91bf-6d2e1618e3ab/content#33
Mike Hulme (Chapter 19) examines why and how the IPCC seeks scientific consensus and some of the limits of such consensus-seeking. In similar fashion, Kari De Pryck (Chapter 20) examines the process through which shared ownership of IPCC reports is reached between authors and governments, in particular during the line-by-line approval of the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Finally in this part, Martin Mahony (Chapter 21) carefully interrogates the injunction for IPCC assessments to be policy relevant yet policy neutral, and the practices by which the institution navigates this boundary.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/41595DD505026B0DAB58F975C03594E6

2.1 Part IV – Processes https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/processes/2F1169BE15602EC4E2F6F61DBBA40F52#4

2.2 19 Scientific Consensus-seeking
“Yet among observers and participants of the IPCC, there are ambiguities about whether consensus statements reflect ‘a lowest common denominator consensus view of the vast majority of scientists’ (Edwards & Schneider, Reference Edwards and Schneider1997: 13), or whether the IPCC ‘brings controversy within consensus, capturing the full range of expert opinion’ (Edwards, Reference Edwards, Schneider, Miller and Edwards2010: xvii). https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/processes/2F1169BE15602EC4E2F6F61DBBA40F52#CN-bp-20

“As future assessments engage more directly with policy solutions to climate change – and as the IPCC furthers its enlistment of more diverse forms of knowledge and expertise – informal modes of consensus-making relying on unstructured deliberation will be found wanting. For example, future engagement by the IPCC with more explicitly value-based forms of knowledge (see Chapter 13) will question whether consensual statements are epistemically, or even ontologically, appropriate or politically desirable. ” https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/scientific-consensusseeking/50A8E2D67589C12FA3C96E83A602E8B6

2.3 20 Governmental Approval
“This type of consensus tends to reduce the diversity of perspectives by converging on the most robust and unanimous conclusions….. ”
“Social scientists, however, have increasingly challenged such views and presented a more complex, social and political analysis of the approval process. It has been argued that such a process, while creating a ‘shared scientific understanding’ of climate change (Lidskog & Sundqvist, Reference Lidskog and Sundqvist2015: 12) can also be conflictual and lead to ‘least-common denominator generalities’ (Vardy et al., Reference Vardy, Oppenheimer, Dubash, O’Reilly and Jamieson2017: 59). ”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/processes/2F1169BE15602EC4E2F6F61DBBA40F52#CN-bp-20

3. The Psychopathic Selection Hypothesis 2026 https://brapodd.se/podd/the-great-simplification-with-nate-hagens/avsnitt/the-psychopathic-selection-hypothesis-the-rules-of-the-game-keep-us-trapped-with-greg-elliott-tgs-231#1

4. “lowest-common-denominator outcomes, which overlook critical issues. This is particularly the case with the “fat-tails” of probability distributions, ….” and “a 4°C future “is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’,…This is a commonly-held sentiment amongst climate scientists.” 2019 https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/EEZ100018/Submissions-and-or-comments/e01ef879f0/Deacon_Peter_H_00222_submission.pdf#29#23

5. Martin Vermeer FCD @martinvermeer@fediscience.org
@avuko @edwiebe That, and actually it is true that, compared to individual climatologists, many of whom are excellent communicators, the IPCC has been a bit slow to acknowledge the urgency of the climate crisis. This is 1) because it operates by consensus and thus publishes a lowest common denominator, and 2) it is interGOVERNMENTal. The interests of governments, esp. of petrostates, are often aligned against candour. 2025 https://fediscience.org/@martinvermeer/114229313645273412

6. “The consensus decision rule is a procedural norm by which a collective body treats a proposal as adopted when no member registers a formal objection, distinguishing it sharply from majority voting, qualified-majority voting, or unanimity in the strict sense. Consensus does not require active assent from every participant; it requires only the absence of a stated dissent strong enough to block the text. ” 2026 https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/glossary/consensus-decision-rule

7. Assessing and governing extreme climate risks needs to be legitimate and democratic
“We agree that extreme climate risks are neglected, and integrated catastrophic climate assessments are needed. We also agree that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not a perfect venue for assessing catastrophic climate risks. It is slow and its consensus decision-making tends to lead to lowest-common-denominator outcomes (3) and poses a challenge for extreme risk analysis.” Kemp, Luke; Chi Xu; Joanna Depledge; Timothy M. Lenton… Timothy A. Kohler 2026 https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/papers/745-reply-to-ruhl-and-craig-assessing-and-governin or https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217404119

8. THE UNDERESTIMATION OF RISK pps 107-125
“A 2013 study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes and fellow researchers examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists. They found that scientists have been “conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change” and that “at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science”. and
“They concluded that climate scientists are not biased toward alarmism but rather the reverse of “erring on the side of least drama, whose causes may include adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation”. This may cause scientists “to underpredict or downplay future climate changes”. “and
“A deceptively optimistic picture is painted when the potential impacts from the degradation of
permafrost and methane hydrates are underplayed” and “IPCC reports have underplayed high-end
possibilities and failed to assess risks in a balanced manner. The failure to fully account for potential future changes to permafrost (frozen carbon stores on land and under the seabed) and other carbon-cycle feedbacks…” https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/EEZ100018/Submissions-and-or-comments/e01ef879f0/Deacon_Peter_H_00222_submission.pdf#29#23

Tomas Kalisz: “As regards Piotr’s metaphor about (also absurd) repeated release of the heat of combustion from once burned fuel, was somewhat unfortunate because although we can assume that throughout the entire 1750 – 2005 period, the forcing from fuel combustion was 0.01 W/m2.”

First – it was no “metaphor” – but the straight argument – a logical consequence of Swedan’s multiplying annual oxidation heat production rate, 0.01 W/m2, by 250 years, if were to allow outgoing radiation (needed if the Earth DID exchange energy with space, as he had lectured you when discussing the definition of closed thermodynamic system).

Second – I left out his secondary error of constant emissions, because I didn’t want to distract the reader from the PRIMARY fallacy – Swedan’s chemical perpetuum mobile – where atom of C continuously emitting heat of oxidation for centuries after the initial oxidation from C to Co2.

Third, the same secondary error of assuming constant emissions of CO2 – applies EQUALLY to your (no-outgoing-IR fallacy) “metaphor” (as the falsehood of the assumption of no increase in outgoing IR would have been MUCH less obvious 250 years ago when human emissions of Co2 were MUCH smaller).