Arjay,
The amplification during the ice ages is not due to chemical catalysis. I’ll say it again: the sun’s heat increases a little bit, the ocean and soils warm a bit and release some CO2. The CO2 causes more warming, which causes more CO2 to be released from the ocean and soils. This causes more warming ... You end up with a lot more warming than you would have got just from the slight increase in the sun’s heat.

GrahamY,
there is a question about the end of the warming phase. Something other than CO2 seems to have cut in. Because of various other factors (e.g. cloud cover), we should not expect a one-to-one relationship between CO2 and temperature, so this question does not automatically invalidate the standard theory as some claim. See previous post regarding continuing debate.

Arjay and ozbib,
Regarding the ‘experiment’ you want, Arjay this bit of science is so well established it’s hard to find anything about it on the web. My guess is you’d have to look in textbooks on atmospheric science. Candide’s link is good, though perhaps only part of what you want. And just because there's not much CO2 doesn't mean it can't do the warming. That's why we have science - to figure these things out properly instead of just guessing.

Q&A and GrahamY, regarding costs of doing something, you can be sure The Oz will say it will be hideously expensive to change anything, they don’t want anything to change. My posts http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/ and http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/energy-efficiency/ give a contrary view, very briefly but with links to sources.

Bazz

I think you will find that radiative forcings of atmospheric gases are measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Have a look at the chart on the last page here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ where I notice that their measurements for CO2 are higher than the measurement I quoted – must upgrade my archives!

“Greenland and other places would become habitable and stand to benefit. “

Indeed LATO. Already Australian miners are over there rubbing their hands in glee.

The Kvanefjeld deposit in Greenland is now recognised as one of the largest known occurrences of Rare Earth Oxides in the world. Reports indicate that the deposit contains 4.91Mt of total rare earth oxide, 990,000 tonnes of zinc, 120,000t of uranium oxide and 3.09Mt of sodium fluoride.

Much of the oil, gas, gold and diamonds the island holds will no doubt become accessible so wherever they put their shovel in…..voila!

However, rumour has it that Greenland has not yet been allocated a carbon dioxide quota - a mere peccadillo in the world of mining.

Additionally it appears Greenland’s government will give the go ahead to Alcoa's aluminium smelter (if not already) which they say will effectively double Greenland’s CO2 emissions (you think these guys might have heard about melting polar caps and global warming?)

The good news (for some) is that if the pickings are good in Greenland, Alcoa may cease trashing the Amazon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEmubrLsu.ro or even the jarrah forests of Western Australia? Nah……..only kidding!

So by the time Greenland has just enough ice left for a Bacardi and coke, the place should strongly resemble the ravaged moonscape of the Eastern Goldfields in WA's Kalgoorlie region.

Geoff Davies: << The Oz will say it will be hideously expensive to change anything, they don’t want anything to change. >>

Oh so true. I only buy it on Saturdays lately, and today's edition of the 'Opposition Organ' contained possibly even more anti-environmental bile than OLO.

I'm seriously reconsidering my $2.60 weekly investment in my decades-old practice of reading 'The Australian'. And Rupert wants to put up a paywall on his online dross and tattletale?

He's dreamin'.

Thank you, Graham Y, CJM, Protagoras and Geoff Davies for assisting in my efforts to understand the science. I have looked at some serious material, but I have a long way to go.

My specific concern in commenting here comes, in spite of my ignorance, from this: Some prominent, influential people, Cardinal Pell and Senator Minchin amongst them, have been asserting that human action does not and cannot make any difference at all to climate. Referring to established science and what all serious scientists accept is not going to counter this kind of widely publicised claim. For thanks to the efforts of successive governments from Hawke's to Howard's, the pronouncements of experts in most fields are treated as suspect by a good many Australians. The situation is being made worse by the current clamour about scientists cheating, or having vested interests in misleading people.

What is needed, in my view, is a concerted effort to explain how we know about greenhouse gases. Not the statistical arguments, which I think people find confusing and which are lost in the clamour; but really, really basic stuff, at the 'why is it so?' level, if you are old enough to know what I mean. Some nice graphic experiments on TV would be good, followed perhaps by an explanation of how CO2 and H20 and CH4 get to absorb and emit infra-red waves.

I find it amazing that there appears to be no modern day practical experiments being done on the heat retention capacities of CO2.This is the most crucial issue facing man kind today yet we rely on computer models that cannot possibly reflect this complex science.

Over 100yrs ago Neils Bohr found that CO2 did not absorb sufficient heat energy to be a problem.Heinz Hug made a similar discovery.http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

Surely with the technical expertise we have today,these experiments can be done without any margin for error.

Why don't both sides of this debate get together and devise a series of practical experiments that test the heating capacity of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere?

If the AGW true believers refuse to go there,then I can only assume that the science was settled by Neils Bohr over 100 yrs ago.

NB. In case you are wondering about CO2 traditionally being called a greenhouse gas,it was because CO2 was put in greenhouses to make the plants grow.It had nothing to do with it's heating capacity.The green house effect happens because the glass reflects some of the infra-red light back inside and the air is trapped within the glass surrounds.

Mitchell;
>The salient point of the article is that R&D into clean and
>affordable alternatives that make fossil fuels obsolete, is the best
>way to drive compliance.

There is a lot of argument that the alternatives currently available
are not up to the job.
A very recent example; the output from Britain's windfarms during the
current freeze has been negligible over a couple of weeks.
The research needs to concentrate more on storage.

Geoff Davies;
>Something other than CO2 seems to have cut in.

Could it be the non-linearity of CO2's effect and that the curve has rolled over ?