I&#x27;m still trying to understand:<p>I know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas:  So, 
light from the sun warms the surface 
of earth which, then, from Planck
black body radiation, radiates more
infrared light.  As we can see from
our exhaled breath, CO2 is invisible,
that is, does not absorb visible light.
But CO2 does absorb light in three 
narrow bands in the infrared, one band
for each of bending, twisting, and
stretching of the molecule.  So, thus
absorbing infrared, CO2 gets warmer
and warms the atmosphere and is a <i>greenhouse</i>
gas.<p>I&#x27;ve looked a little on the Internet
for details of the absorption spectra
of CO2 and how to calculate the
rates as a function of concentration,
temperature, distance, pressure, etc.
Anyone know how to get such background
info?<p>That is, something like in
a greenhouse, CO2 lets the visible
light from the sun through to the
ground but traps some of the
infrared light from the ground
that otherwise would escape to space.<p>Maybe since the Little Ice Age,
the oceans are still warming up?<p>Maybe the sea level rise is due to 
the water expanding due to being warmer?<p>Maybe the recent increases in CO2 
concentration in the atmosphere
are from CO2 from the warmer oceans and 
the point that cooler water absorbs more
CO2 and warmer water absorbs less and, thus,
releases CO2?<p>During the Little Ice Age, as civilization
grew and developed, likely the 
rate of CO2 from human activity was 
increasing, but, then, maybe the significantly
lower temperatures of the Little Ice Age
were due not 
to less CO2 from human activity
but from less solar activity, e.g.,
in terms of sun spots,
the Maunder Minimum?<p>Maybe going back to the Medieval Warming Period,
the higher temperatures, IIRC, higher than now,
e.g., growing grapes in England, have 
agriculture boom
and wealth and cathedral construction increase,
were due not to more CO2 from human 
activity or more CO2 at all but from
more solar activity, i.e., sun spots?<p>Maybe the higher temperatures since the
end of the Little Ice Age have been
due to more solar activity?  E.g., from 
about 1940 to 1970, the CO2 from
human activity was increasing but the
level of solar activity was decreasing and,
also, the temperature was decreasing.
So, more CO2 from human activity but 
lower temperatures?<p>Maybe the last 15 years or so of increasing
CO2 from human activity but relatively stable 
temperatures have been from less solar activity?<p>Maybe the temperature changes are driven more
by changes in the level of solar activity than
by the changes in the levels of CO2
from human activity or the levels of CO2
in the atmosphere from CO2 released from
warmer oceans, from volcanoes, from rotting
plants, etc.?<p>Trying to make sense out of all of this:<p>Effect of solar activity?  More solar 
<i>activity</i> means more sun spots and, thus,
more solar wind blowing past earth.  But,
there are claims that one of the main
sources of cloud formation on earth is
cosmic rays hitting water molecules 
and, thus, stimulating the formation
of water droplets and, thus, clouds.  But
supposedly more clouds have a net cooling effect,
maybe from clouds reflecting more sunlight?
So, more cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere
would have a net cooling effect.<p>But there are claims that more solar
wind blocks some of the cosmic rays, 
thus, reduces cloud formation, and
has a net warming effect.<p>So, if believe this chain of causes, then
more solar activity means more sun spots,
more solar wind, fewer cosmic rays
hitting water molecules, less formation
of water droplets, less cloud formation,
and net warming.  Any good sources of evidence
for such a causal chain?  Anyone debunk
such stuff?  Anyone believe such stuff?