Originally posted by Angus
Oh, Sabre:
Warmer climate and raised ocean temperature unleashes CO2 from the biggest buffer, - the sea. If the cause is anything else for starters. Then the effects are countering each other, - increased CO2 raises temps, which also releases more CO2 etc etc.
What's different in our case in the last years is that NOW the CO2 is LEADING. Okay, we know we've added to it, and roughly how much. So hence the conclucion, not just GW, but MMGW. But it's a unique position.
(I still remain sceptic about the totalness of MM, but less with every round)
Oh, BTW, if you were god, and could tune up various gas bars on the planet at will to see what happened, increased co2 would definately cause a GW. Same with you and the kettle, put water in and turn it on, - if it works it's gonna boil in there.
As for the world poverty and welfare, you ain't seen nothing yet if the temperature bar is keeping onwards where it's heading.
As for counter measures for CO2 emissions, I fail to see a downside. It's an opening to new businesses of industry as well as a different approach to useage of land and resources. The first one I'd suspect to get a bloody nose out of those would be a greedy western consumer who wants lots of products for a truly unrealistic price.
I'm sorry but your model is too simplistic, and ignores some things. From the Junk Science website:
Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does. Clouds, in the absence of all other greenhouse gases, could do likewise -- look at it as there already being "competition" for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like.
So, the more moisture in the air, the less effect CO2 can have, which dampens out the "reinforceing" effect your proposing.
Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).
To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).
So no, if I were God and wanted to experiment as you say, CO2 would be a very uninteresting parameter to play with, as it's effect on temps is minimal.
Again, the ice records show that temps drive CO2, not the other way around. As for countermeasures to CO2, the do not create wealth, they re-distribute it. That's what the cap-and-trade measures and carbon taxes will do, and they will do it on the backs of consumers. They will affect the poor and the undeveloped nations most, as they have the least ability to absorb the redistribution of wealth.
Look, I'm all for alternate energy and a clean enviroment, but for the right reasons and done in a smart, pro-economic growth way. CO2 is not polution, it's plant food.
