Scott Lowther wrote in message ...
Martin Frey wrote:


I don't think anybody denied poor=dirty. Scott Lowther was attempting
to deny that rich=dirty by pretending that, in this context, CO2 is
not dirty.


Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.
snip

Unfortunately fro that argument, water vapor is a source of positive
feedback mechanism for any source of climate change. Anything tha
tends to warm the atmosphere, warms the oceans, which in turn
increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the
grrenhouse effect. (Similarly anythiing that tends to cool the earth
tends to decrease waater vapor which in turn decreases the greenhouse
effect.) Estimates of the isolated effects of doubling CO2 (without
including feedback) are small, 1K, the higher effects, 1K, that are
most often reported are due to models that include feedback
mechanisms. Much of the uncertainty in these estimate is due to the
large uncertainties in some of these feedback mechanism, particularly
clouds and vegetation, but also the detailed changes in water vapor
amounts.