Hi,
When I said we are dealing with a complex system I was referring to the fact that there are currently some very disturbing things occurring at the quantum level that would appear to point more to what is occurring than a 0.001% increase in the CO2 levels due to the energy levels involved.

As I said in another post the greatest impact on the weather we are causing is the increase in PM i.e. soot, sulphides & dust etc in the atmosphere which greatly effects the rain making process.

This is the same thing that occurs with the con trails, it stops the sun's energy from reaching the surface and with that lowers the water vapour production process which results in less rain. This is reflected in the world wide drop in pan evaporation rates over the last decade.

I will also point out that the contrail process that you mention causes a cooling, not a heating process as the water vapour reflects the sun's ray's back into space.

In closing I would like to state that to get a "Warming" you have to have a change in the Thermodynamic and Transport properties of the medium and this can only occur if you significantly change the specific heat of the medium, and to say that a change of 0.001% of one of the constituents is the thing that is presumptuous.

>Hi Neil,
>
>Sure the numbers suggest that a miniscule variance to an already tiny number would have no effect whatsoever. But you have also stated that we are dealing with a complex system. The tiny number for CO2 is operating on the planet in a specific way already. To conclude that any change would have minimal impact looks a leap in logic to me.
>
>We know that the complex system called the human body can benefit from micro levels of certain poisons yet be killed by only slighty higher concentrations.
>
>We know from a study in North America post 9/11 that jet contrails have some impact on the average surface temperature. Who would've thought that from a mere 32,000 flights per day?!
>
>We are talking about weather here, which is a subject with high economic impact and so has been studied for at least a few hundreds of years. A subject to which the world's most powerful computers have been applied for at least 4 decades in attempts (largely unsuccessful I think you'll agree) to be able to predict (only) severe weather. To flatly conclude that .001 increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would have no effect is at least presumptuous when we can not successfully model a hurricane for which virtually all (known to be relevant) parameters are known.
>
>cheers
>
> >Hi Jim,
>>See Message#1133508
>>
>>
>>>SNIP>
>>>>The processes at work are far more complex than what is being put forward, and have little or nothing to do with what man is or has being doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is so complex yet you can dismiss man's contribution just like that?
>>>
>>>While I appreciate that I am uninformed on the details of the matter, I find it smarter to listen to a large majority of scientists rather than dismiss their warnings because my limited knowledge can poke a hole in their theory. I rather feel that my little poked hole is far more likely to be my error than theirs.
>>>
>>>There have been lots of things through my life that I was sure I had all figured out, only to be deflated by the unknown facts/events. This smelled like another one of those to me after a while, so I came around.
>>>
>>>I have an innate mistrust of scientists who get their funding directly from industry (coal, oil, automobile, etc) and wonder why it is that most of them dismiss "global warming" out-of-hand.
>>>It truly is unfortunate that business and government have become so influential in the work of scientists and particularly their conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>>
>>>SNIP