"Invalid logical inference. Sure, in the case when some entity isn't pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, you have a point. But the game is a bit different at the moment."
I have absolutely no problems with caving in. Lack of information drives you in a wrong direction. You have demonstrated a familiarity with the Ocean Conveyor belt, so you must be familiar with the global Carbon Cycle,
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
If you inspect the picture, you will find out that there is a flux of about 150-160GT/year coming out of oceans and forests, and almost all this flux gets eventually sucked back into oceans and lands. "Some entity" allegedly adds about 3-4% to this flux, so I would not qualify this as overly dramatic, especially knowing that the past Earth have seen much higher CO2 concentrations, 10x-20x of today, with plenty of inhabitants and no industry folks around. So, the game is only a tiny bit different at the moment, and I still have a very solid point here.
If you want to hear my opinion, I would say that the abilities of warm ocean areas to release stored CO2 from deep waters is vastly underestimated by current people of climatology, and the ability to sink CO2 in cold waters is overestimated. As result, it is quite possible that the current conclusion that oceans are net CO2 sinks may be incorrect.
"Ok, since you are going down this road, I will ask you the same question I asked Taro. Are you claiming that CO2 doesn't absorb in the infrared? "
Sure it does. So what?
"Or, conversely, are you claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't work?"
Sure it does. However, please consider that 90%+ of the greenhouse effect is provided by water vapor and cloud dynamics associated with it. Some people claim the number to be as high as 97%. Please also consider that substantial part of CO2 absorbtion bands is already saturated, so the effect from additional concentration must be quite diminished.
Unfortunately, it is my observation that the People of Belligerent Climatology are having general problems with logic and sense of numbers, not speaking about more sophisticated concepts as analytical geometry and chaotic dynamics. I am sadly surprised to see you near their camp.
Cheers,
- Ali |
