Is it all decided?

Question

Bobby_burke,a scientist,asked this a couple of days ago.
Has anybody studied deminshing returns of co2 in the atmosphere?
I know from my study of agriculture and economics (my degree is in agricultural economics) that any variable input results in diminishing returns when input is added at a higher and higher level. Has anyone studied atmospheric co2 in this manner? In agriculture, which is a natural science, if any variable (such as water or nitrogen) results in diminishing returns when added at higher and higher levels. I have received the same results in econometric models when variables are added when building econometric models. My hypothesis is that increasing levels of atmospheric co2 will result in global cooling not global warming. Any comments? Any research in this area
This gentalman dos'nt seem so conviced that GW is real.

Thanks Gary's wife.It's nice to see ( educated)reason.

Pluto? Really Trevor.

Answer 1

The law of diminished returns doesn't necessarily apply to ecological cycles. They are in effect sustainable. I am not Gary K I'm his wife, the brains of the family. My area is Sustainable Agriculture. The more CO2 in the air the faster it is removed at least until the Oceans can no longer grow more algae in response to the increase, forget forests--please.
Global Warming is a separate issue as is Climate Change. To blame Climate Change on CO2 you first have to establish the clear relationship between the enhanced Greenhouse effect and Global Warming and Global Warming and Climate Change. I'm not saying that they are not linked, simply that the logic presented in your question is fundamentally flawed.
Further study of the LIA effect will likely shed light on the actual contribution of enhanced greenhouse gases. In the mean time prudent usage of energy is called for.
As for massive reductions in CO2? Be careful what you ask for, nothing is without consequences.

Answer 2

I answered Bobby's question when it was posted the other day. The law of diminishing returns is not an argument that can be used to refute global warming or to add credibility to an argument that the world is cooling. It is statistical concept of economy that describes how the increased output of a system diminishes with incremental input.

For example, you hang a 1 kilogram weight from a piece of elastic and it stretches by 1000mm, you add a further 1kg and it stretches a further 500mm, another kg and it stretches 200mm. Although you're adding the same weight each time the amount of additional stretching reduces.

Hre's the answer I provided to Bobby's question...

The point you make about diminishing returns is correct but increasing greenhouse gas levels won't lead to global cooling, instead any increase will lead to increased global warming on a scale tending to zero.

However, long before the zero point was reached we'd have all died from asphyxiation.

The three gases nitrogen, oxygen and argon account a little over 99.9% of the atmosphere, these do not contribute to global warming. Carbon dioxide and all other GHGs make up about 0.05% of the atmosphere so there's massive potential for increasing the levels of GHGs. There's also massive potential for increasing the amount of gas in the atmosphere - this would just lead to an expansion of the atmosphere further into space and higher pressures.

A similar event has been witnessed on Pluto where in the last 14 years atmospheric pressure has tripled and there has been intense warming, we don't know exactly what's caused it but we can study the effects.

Because levels of GHG's are so small in comparison to the atmosphere as a whole, any increase in GHG levels will lead to an almost identical contribution to global warming. It would take too long to work out precise figures but a 100% rise in GHGs would lead over 99% increase in the contribution they make to global warming.

Answer 3

Of course scientists realize this fundamental fact of physics. It is true that there are diminishing returns at some point. At very high levels, each additional equal increase in CO2 will block less heat from leaving. But it will never cause cooling, just less rapid increase in warming.

We're nowhere near that point. If we get there sea levels will be tens of feet higher, and it will be an economic disaster for rich countries and a human disaster for poor ones.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407

We don't want to go there.

Yes, it is decided. AGW is real.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 4

It has little effect either way. CO2 has been higher and lower in the distant past and its been cooler and warmer in both high and low CO2 levels.