re: #386 LudwigVanQuixote

Do you know how many times we have been over this… I mean it isn’t like you ever faill to bring that idea up in every single thread you post on that I am on. It isn’t as if I constantly say no, that is wrong and then point you to the emissions curves and the temp curves…

Let me try a new tactic. Explain to me how all that CO2 has no effect and then tell me what has an energy budget to produce the effect we do see that is not CO2?

Try that.

I didn’t say that CO2 has no effect. Let me state that I am sure that CO2 does have an effect. This is obvious. Also, since the partial pressure of H2O rises with temperature, there is an obvious positive feedback mechanism. Another obvious positive feedback mechanism is albedo (melting snow/ice reveals darker things underneath which absorb more solar energy). On the negative side is the basic blackbody radiation increase as a function of temperature.

Those 3 things are GW 101. Methane release, increased plant growth, clouds, thermohaline circulations, arctic ozone, etc. are more advanced. (By the way, I checked the Tipping Elements paper to make sure I didn’t miss anything and Arctic Ozone is on the list!)

This is a nascent field and the people who are screaming we have to act now are IMHO unprofessional. We’ll know more in a few years.