It is more complicated than the simple linear argument you presented. Numerous non-linear interactions can take place such as increased clouds, which both reflect shortwave radiation and absorb longwave radiation. Heat can be stored in the oceans. Reduced snow cover impacts the albedo and amount of shortwave radiation absorbed. You could also argue that it has to get warmer to get colder since warmer temperatures can hold more water vapor that can potentially fall as snow and increase the albedo.
It would be foolish to assume a vast conspiracy. The impact is real. The real questions are how much of an impact and will it be catastrophic. I would guess/hope that we will have a handle on this within the next 20 years. Unlike the people at the extremes, my mind is still open as I understand that this is really a research effort (and one that should be done). Ultimately the models may not be a useful tool for setting public policy since I don't think you can get it right without getting the clouds right and that may not be possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlaw
My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.
|