svguy

Not in the slightest. The retained energy is dynamic and subject to many different "signals", the composite is which is reflected in net energy retention
of the planet (both positive and negative, given the "net signal", so to speak).

Some are macro "natural" (i.e. solar activity, the main "driver" of the system and a potential secondary effector as well, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds, UV level).

Some are weather or climatologically based (i.e. El Nino and La Nina cycles each contribute, in summation, to the long term "end signal", as well as the Pacific Dodecennial (sp?) Oscillation (PDO) cycle, in which we seem to be heading into)

Significant anthro acivity also impacts the system; as does non-anthro activity. Each activity contributes its own signal (and in some cases, affects another in a way, such as my land use example previously, listing at least three potential effects to other "signals").

CO2 has its "signal" as well that contributes to the sum total. The thermal response to non-diatomic atmosphere components is well known. When the concentration of these atmoshperic components increase, each associated signal increases. In the case of CO2, the concentration is undoubtedly increasing per direct measurements. Further, the isotope studies clearly point to anthro sources as being a *major* contributor to the increased levels.

The question, at least for me, is *not* whether this has an effect. The science on the thermal response to increased levels to me is clear. The questins for me are: a) are the projected levels valid; and/or b) in sum toto, what is the relative net effect, given all the other signals.

For example: What I have read about the PDO, the "forcing" of this is seemingly currently greater than that of the net current CO2 load forcing. Accordingly the net energy balance will go down, at least while the PDO is on the downcycle.

Another example: The '98 El Nino event was among the most intense ever seen. This probably led to the huge spiking in temperature during the '98-'99 timeframe.

So, at least for me, the CO2 increases represents a monotonically (or worse) increasing "baseline signal" to the net energy signal. Placed on top of that are the "driver signals" (sun), the "weather signals" (El Nino,La Nina), "weather/climate signals" (PDO), land use signals, albedo signals, etc. Sometimes they combine to form big peaks ('98-2001), sometimes the combine to form troughs.

But the increase of CO2 will absolutely increase the magnitude of the CO2 signal.