Oh boy, here we go again. Seriously, I even thought this had some potential. Obviously, as stated in the article, "Earth has natural processes that absorb and hold onto heat to counteract that cooling effect". However, the author slides to the wrong side. Without what has been called "greenhouse effect" (which should always be used inside quotation marks) to -387ºF at night. But the "blanket" that covers Earth is the atmosphere as a whole, regardless of its chemical composition.

Those "positive feedback loops" and "runaway greenhouse effect", such are "big words" they like to use, are speculation from (far from perfect) computer models (video-games). It is even admitted they know nothing about clouds.

What surprises me is that the author has the answer: "our carbon dioxide emissions wouldn’t be anything to worry about".

One thing they are right, though, even though they interpret it wrong at some points, it's the water, stupid. (Please, bear in mind this is an expression, and I'm using it as such, not to offend anyone).

The temperature regulator power of water lies in its latent heat property, which, for water, is one of the highest there is for evaporation.

Honestly, I do not know how many times this has to be repeated, and this alone would put all this "global warming by CO2" nonsense off: the irradiative heat from "thermal (infrared) affected molecules" (I believe the term "greenhouse gases", apart from conceptually wrong, nowadays is misleading) cannot cause extra heating of the system. That would mean "doubling" the solar energy, thus suggesting "creation of energy", therefore implying in something like "infinite energy on a loop". It is like plugging those electric extension powers in itself, or saying that all energy necessary for anything is a candle. It is to say one can melt an iron structure with a candle. Besides, energy always flows from a warmer object towards a colder object.

It is that supply of water (almost 3/4 of the planet's surface) that allows for optimal life conditions on this planet. And it is water that "regulates" weather, almost like a thermostat.

The reflection/absorption argument is also lame. There ain't much solar power arriving at the poles anyway for its reflection/absorption to be of significance. Besides, it is only the visible light that is reflected.

When snow melts, it is because it is getting hotter anyway (winter to spring to summer). However, when snow is falling it actually gets warmer because of the release of energy in the process. It is water that is absorbing and holding most of the heating the Sun throws at us, thankfully. Without all that water and the atmosphere as well we would be frozen at -387ºF at night.

For those still insisting about the power of CO2, I invite them to spend a night in a dry desert. There ain't enough CO2 in the galaxy to make you warm, but be my guest.