I have a masters in earth science which includes meteorology, oceanography, geology, & astronomy.
Okay, so let's just run through a few checks to see if your underlying knowledge matches this claim.
The sun is the source of our climate & lo & behold we have an atmosphere & are just the right distance from the sun.
Okay, sounds like you're drifting towards making an Anthropic Principle argument, but I think we can all agree that the sun is the primary driver of the climate.
We have a differentiated layer geoid. We have these things called tectonic plates (land & ocean) that do slowly move around the globe over time. Past records show that the geography looked much different. The masses move by magma convection beneath in the mantle-it's whole cake geology. Faultlines stitch together the plates. The geometry of these masses & seas in turn set up our ocean currents, our wind belts, & our semi-permanent pressure cells. We have an axis with a tilt that produces 4 seasons.
It sounds like you're trying to overwhelm with trivia here. "4 seasons" is an arbitrary convenience, it means the length of day light varies throughout the year and therefore so does the daily total insolation.
It is the differentiation in the pressure gradients that set up cyclones & anticyclones which rotate around the globe. They in turn are affected by mountain ranges, beaches, valleys, forests, open deserts, tundra. That is what drives weather. Carbon dioxide is a gas exhaled by living things, including plants at night (inhaled by them in daytime).
The above items you mentioned are unnecessary for cyclones or anticyclones. We see them on gas giants that are far too large to be affected by what little solid surface exists below the clouds. Also you're mixing in "weather" to a climate discussion which you should not do given your education in meteorology.
We are still coming out of the Ice Age because not every glacier has disappeared. The sun's energy varies with sunspots & power output. The distinct jet streams often distribute themselves sometimes at higher latitudes, sometimes lower.
It's a little difficult to take you seriously when you say "the sun's energy varies with sunspots & power output". It's very imprecise language and is technically wrong.
Sunlight that we receive at surface level is re-radiated back to space at night. It is the re-radiation that creates surface warmth during summer (infrared).
This again raises a bunch of red flags. It's the sort of thing I expect to hear from someone who only paid attention to half of a high school physics lecture. It's again very informal language but is more than just "technically" wrong. It's plain wrong. Why do deserts get colder at night than their less arid neighbors?
The politicians are trying to make an issue of something they cannot control. Man being arrogant (go back to the Galileo story) thinks it can.
More red flags. "The Galileo story" is a favorite of groups with a political objection to AGW, but not to those with scientific objection.
Now co2 can contribute to a greenhouse effect locally (visit a greenhouse in summer) but the little gas put out on the globe cannot change the whole picture.
Even more red flags. There is not nearly enough co2 in a regular greenhouse to account for its temperature. Because of the relatively high number of plants in a greenhouse, it generally has a somewhat lower co2 concentration than the outside atmosphere unless co2 is pumped in. This one isn't even an issue of imprecise language and it is just plain wrong. The temperature inside of a conventional greenhouse in summer has little to nothing to do with its co2 level.
The biggest sink for CO2 is the ocean & lakes, followed by forests. So why all the fuss? Simple. The Democrats want this issue so they find another way to drive a tax into the economy. They want to punish people either at the gas pump, or those with electric heat, or AC. This gives them more money to spend. Imagine that-our own govt wants to punish people. I.E. the govt does not want you to use your AC when its 90+. They want you to suffer all to save planet earth. Ditto in the winter. They want $7 a gallon gas. It's easy for Leo & George to stick their nose in it but do you think it's gonna stop them from using their private jet or Ferrari.
I have no response to unsubstantiated rantings of conspiracy theory.
The local heat effect in a metropolis is known as a heat island. All the emissions from vehicles, utilities, businesses, restaurants, hospitals, collect in one place & they are blocked in by tall buildings, things that absorb heat like concrete, steel, & asphalt. Of course when you settle more people here-the more the effect on the grid. What would help is maybe more city trees.
Urban heat island effects are fairly well understood as to their cause and effect. Trees won't help much though, unless they displace the things causing the problem in the first place. Given your credentials, you should really know better.
All energy actions lead to entropy. What this means is energy is never 100% efficient. It goes off to waste--heat waste.
Yes, but this is meaningless in context.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it's an emission which in turn is used by algae, fungi, plants, crops, trees. This is how we make our food.
Red flags again. Being an emission does not mean it isn't a pollutant. The fact that some things can make use it is immaterial. Look up the definition of "pollutant"; given your credentials, you should know better.
Our troposphere is 78% nitrogen 20% oxygen, & the balance a small % of co2, argon, sulfur compounds, maybe some xenon, helium, & hydrogen. The reason we have nitrogen as the highest % is two-fold: if we had 100% oxygen, this gas being highly volatile-we would burn up. The nitrogen is there in a sense to buffer us.
MAJOR red flags - appeal to anthropic principle. We know that oxygen was significantly higher in the past which is one reason fauna back then were generally much larger than they are now.
The nitrogen accrual came earth's early years when bacteria began to fix nitrogen. Now certainly we'd all like a clean earth but you won't get to 100%.
Red flags here: nitrogen fixing refers to taking nitrogen out of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is a relatively inert gas so its accumulation in the atmosphere is an inevitability. Once it's molecular nitrogen it takes a fair bit of energy to break those bonds. Some things can do it, but it's expensive.
CO2 does not create low pressure system such as a tornado; it does not create an Alberta clipper; it does not make a dust storm or cirrus clouds.
Nobody involved in climate research claims that it does. The claim is that CO2 is more opaque at infrared wavelengths and so the energy radiating away from the planet is less. If the energy isn't leaving, it must be staying and that means things get warmer.
The sun is roughly 50% thru it's life cycle as a not so big star.
The sun is an average-sized star.
As it ages, it will begin going thru consecutive shells of hydrogen & helium burning. This will eventually increase its diameter. It will become a red giant & albeit cool off (red is cool), it will absorb the entire solar system & we will all perish.
More red flags - yellow dwarfs of 1 solar mass are predicted to expand to roughly 2 AU at their peak. So, it might reach as far as Mars. Neptune, the most distant "planet", has a mean orbital distance of roughly 30 AU.
At some point it will fuse thru the next elements in the periodic table until it gets to iron. The cost of burning iron is where it ends-it's too great a cost-the sun will blow up as a nova & become a tinier white hot dwarf.
Yet more red flags... Stars of 1 solar mass do not possess enough gravity to overcome the electron degeneracy pressure. They do not fuse anything but hydrogen in appreciable amounts until the very end - after their red giant phase - when they have a "helium flash" what will blow the outer gas layers out into space and form a ring-like "planetary" nebula. But that's it. Also, when a star does "blow up" it's called a "supernova" not "nova". "Nova" is what happens after it is a white dwarf if it is in a binary system, which our sun is not. Also, supernovae do not become white dwarfs, they become neutron stars.
That is the end. Stardust we are born & to stardust we return.
The end indeed. It just doesn't sound like you know this subject very well.
The last three solar cycles have been some of the weakest on record and yet we still keep getting warmer.
