Climate Policy

[eppie]

This is not true. Where does peat come from? Unless you want to consider a plants life span to be millions of years. Then, due to natural processes the carbons can be released sometimes after thousands or millions of years. I'm not even sure what happens to biomass that falls to the bottom of deep oceans. At the end of the last ice age at 18000 and 13000 years ago changes in the environment released over 600 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere in two large burps (the equivalent of our current rate over 100 years).

Yes you are right.....this would mean a zero total contribution (after the peat has been burned).
The only way of systematically getting less CO2 in gas form is trapping in hydrocarbons or elemental form (so oil or coal formation ) or as carbonates in non soluble minerals. Or an average larger amount of plant biomass on earth.

How is this true? I think you assume it is true, but while we have less forests I'm not sure we have less biomass. If this were true, wouldn't we see a decrease in O2 levels?

Hmm, I am starting doubt. Anyway, we will have less biomass if we add up the contribution of the biomass that has been transformed in oiol, coal and peat. I am not sure if we would see decrease in O2 levels, O2 depends not only on trapping in CO2 and releasing through photosynthesis I think.

In measuring the "green house effect", you need to measure the impact of both water vapor, as well as other GHG's in absorbing and dissipating heat, as well as clouds (and other albedo sources) in both insulting the ground and reflecting radiation away.

Of course, but the thing with molecular water is that it is always (even in ice ages) available in limitless quantities, and vapour will always be in equilibrium depending on temperature and pressure. So higher temps. mean more water vapour (thanks Pete) but it can't be a steering factor. CO2 is only available in gas form or solubilized form, but then it is technically carbonate) and otherwise it is in another chemical state. If you pump 20 times the CO2 concentration in air, it will stay there untill it gets absorbed by the sea and 'eaten' by plants. This has two results, more plants (iof we don't destroy them again) and a more acidic sea.
If you pump 20 times the amount of water in the air, you get rain. So of course water absorbs heat and aids global warming, but it is a passive contributor.

It has been a big mistake in this whole debate not to attempt to understand this highly complex system. Even solar flares with increases in ionizing radiation may have a temporary effect in increasing the atmospheres albedo effect.Right. I'm just trying to make the point that CO2 is probably not as important as everyone seems to think it is, but I don't have any issues with transforming away from fossil fuels for other reasons (e.g. limited resource, pollution, renewable sources are available, etc.).

Solar flares have always been there, and they will influence heating up, but this is hardly on geological time scales. So of course there are many other factors that influence warming.....but most of them are not systematic.