Comment keep on calculating [Don't speculate, calculate] (Score 1) 719
A nice response, and interesting. But if you dig a little deeper, you'll see it's not that trivial.
Yes it is.
It's not, and one point that needs to be clarified is that AGW proponents must supply the burden of proof.
Nope. You have just proposed a hypothesis. Unless you show that it is plausible, there's no reason for anybody to pay attention: your hypothesis, your burden to show it's plausible.
As it turns out, about two minutes of calculation shows it's several orders of magnitude too small to be relevant. But you need to learn to do your calculations.
Unsupported speculation is not science. It may be the start of science... but it's not science until you start using numbers.
I would note that your post didn't address the relative orders of magnitude of CO2.
Calculations, please. Making stuff up isn't science. Calculating effects is. If you think that relative magnitude of CO2 is relevant, give me a back of the envelope showing plausibility. You can use as a starting point the fact all the volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, an estimated 130 to 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. (Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?)
I'm not talking about the CO2 from the volcanoes, it's the heat and acidity.
You randomly shift back and forth from saying its the CO2 (first quote in this thread this one), it's the heat (listed first in this sentence), or it's the acidity (end of this sentence). Three completely different effects; three completely different calculations. This leads me to suspect you haven't actually thought it out. Pick one. Do the calculation. Check your numbers. Check them again.
Sorry, gotta go.