I have an interesting global warming argument, I will drop it here.
Carbon Dioxide by itself has a well-understood greehouse effect. This is something you can measure in a gas-chamber in a laboratory, and nobody denies this. However, this greenhouse effect is relatively minor. In order to cause a catastophic warming trend, the hypothesis is that carbon dioxide activates more water vapor, which magnifies the warming effect greatly. Thus the global warming debate actually centers around these feedback effects.
This feedback effect cannot be more than the initial amount of warming. For example, let's say the feedback ratio is 1/2. The sequence looks like this:
1 + 1/2 + (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^3 + (1/2)^4 + ......
This levels off to a fixed value of 2.
However, if the feedback effect causes MORE warming than the initial effect, for example, 2x as much warming.
1 + 2 + (2)^2 + (2)^3 + (2)^4 +....
This does NOT level off to a fixed value, it goes away to infinity.
Of course, it won't actually go to infinity, it will go to a threshold where the negative effect balance out the positive effects. But that means any small deviation in the CO2 sends us to the threshold, so the real debate is about this threshold anyway.
Now it's of course possible that the multiplier is near 1. For example, if the heat-multiplier is 1/9
1 + 1/9 + (1/9)^2 + (1/9)^3 + (1/9)^4 + ...... = 10
This means that every factor of CO2 causes a factor of 10 in the water vapor.
Realistically, what are the chances that 1 factor of CO2 causes exactly 0.9 factors of water vapor? Probably not much, that would be an incredible coincidence. Usually in physics you find that related quantities are separated by a couple powers of 10, not precisely the same order of magnitude like this. It's an incredible coincidence really. This gives our science-brains the suspicion that this relationship is not so closely related, but we need to search for more evidence to be certain.
Carbon Dioxide by itself has a well-understood greehouse effect. This is something you can measure in a gas-chamber in a laboratory, and nobody denies this. However, this greenhouse effect is relatively minor. In order to cause a catastophic warming trend, the hypothesis is that carbon dioxide activates more water vapor, which magnifies the warming effect greatly. Thus the global warming debate actually centers around these feedback effects.
This feedback effect cannot be more than the initial amount of warming. For example, let's say the feedback ratio is 1/2. The sequence looks like this:
1 + 1/2 + (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^3 + (1/2)^4 + ......
This levels off to a fixed value of 2.
However, if the feedback effect causes MORE warming than the initial effect, for example, 2x as much warming.
1 + 2 + (2)^2 + (2)^3 + (2)^4 +....
This does NOT level off to a fixed value, it goes away to infinity.
Of course, it won't actually go to infinity, it will go to a threshold where the negative effect balance out the positive effects. But that means any small deviation in the CO2 sends us to the threshold, so the real debate is about this threshold anyway.
Now it's of course possible that the multiplier is near 1. For example, if the heat-multiplier is 1/9
1 + 1/9 + (1/9)^2 + (1/9)^3 + (1/9)^4 + ...... = 10
This means that every factor of CO2 causes a factor of 10 in the water vapor.
Realistically, what are the chances that 1 factor of CO2 causes exactly 0.9 factors of water vapor? Probably not much, that would be an incredible coincidence. Usually in physics you find that related quantities are separated by a couple powers of 10, not precisely the same order of magnitude like this. It's an incredible coincidence really. This gives our science-brains the suspicion that this relationship is not so closely related, but we need to search for more evidence to be certain.
